We performed a comparison between Field Effect Covalence and IBM Security QRadar based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed Detection and Response (MDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are the SIEM and the ticketing function; the latter is very smooth and easy to read and understand. We don't have any issues looking at the ticketing information when we're trying to identify what's going on."
"The biggest aspect for us is that they are able to conform to our environment and utilize our tools. That way, we still maintain ownership of all the data and access to the applications, and we never lose control of the ability to run the solution ourselves if we need to."
"The case interface is Binary Defense MDR's most valuable feature."
"The customization has been the most valuable aspect and was really the reason we ended up selecting Binary Defense. They worked with us to provide exactly the level of support, features, response, and collaboration we needed."
"Among the valuable features are the agent, continuous reporting, and dashboard. It has all the features we need and we haven't had to customize it, other than turning on certain features that we wanted."
"The speed at which their services are reactive is valuable. Nowadays, when a threat hits an endpoint, you've got minutes, not hours or days. Their average response time is about four minutes on an alert. For anything that needs to be sent to us, it's about fourteen minutes, which is pretty good. They're the third SOC that I've used in fifteen years. By far, they are the quickest ones to act. When you're looking at prevention, that's a key factor."
"The most valuable feature is reviewing tickets and the notes added by technicians."
"The most valuable part of Binary Defense is its team of cybersecurity analysts. Their analysts filter out the noise and only forward the critical threats that require a response instead of false positives."
"Covalence's cloud protection element has been excellent. A lot of organizations are using 365. It's hard to find a secure solution for protecting accounts. We've gone down the path of trying to utilize other security solutions for that particular area. We've been disappointed and always come back to trying to implement Covalence when we can so we know people are safe."
"It provides valuable insights into our IT environment, enabling us to improve reselling, upgrades, and customer management."
"The most valuable feature is the network traffic monitoring function."
"The most valuable aspects of Covalence for me are the exceptional customer service and the support from the dedicated team."
"There are user notifications about our cloud solutions and access, meaning authentication and possible breaches. Overall, the notifications and alerts are valuable. There are also new features like the DNS protection, which is quite good."
"I get alerts if there's malicious activity or restrictions, should they any suspicious activity emerge."
"The most valuable aspect of Field Effect Covalence is its ability to continuously monitor for and identify potential threats."
"The ARO alerts are helpful to use almost daily to get a sense of what actions we need to take to expedite security measures."
"I have found visibility very helpful for analytics."
"This is a good tool to have because it gives you the ability to track what is currently happening in your environment."
"The initial setup is not complex or difficult."
"It also has a graph that shows the traffic history. I can see what happened yesterday or today. If there's an incident, I can check the traffic behavior on QRadar."
"It protect us from multiple authentication values, unauthorized access and antivirus threats."
"The threat protection network is the most valuable feature, because when you get an offense, you can actually trace it back to where it originated from, how it originated, and why."
"The tool is already automated in many ways, but there are some additional functions which should be automated, like sending an email, mobile notification, and integration of XFS."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I would like to get more reports from Binary Defense about what they're blocking."
"I would like to see more frequent check-ins with our security status."
"If I were shopping for an MDR solution today, I would not only look for a company that has the ability to alert, detect, and remediate, but also the ability to integrate vulnerability management. That's a big thing that they're lacking today."
"We found a couple of bugs in the user interface."
"We should be able to isolate devices faster. They should shorten the time between clicking on a device to contain it and carrying out the action. That would be a welcome improvement."
"It's hard to think of anything that they need to improve on, but just to point out something, I would like to see them provide advanced XDR."
"We found that an earlier version of the agent had high memory usage and that was a bit concerning, but we raised the concern with their support team and they immediately replied that they had noticed the same thing and had a candidate fix already available... it totally fixed the issue."
"It's sometimes difficult to know when to engage Binary Defense or TrustedSec, their sister company. TrustedSec is more focused on offensive security, as opposed to the defensive security that the MDR solution provides. It would be awesome if there were a better bridge between that relationship for when we need to get more proactive services or when we need to do a penetration test."
"Because this is a security solution, I would recommend that they extend their support hours, and perhaps for emergencies, even to 24/7 or 24/5."
"The area where they can make it better is by giving responses to the end-user. For example, when there is an alert to the administrator, I get it. I have to copy and paste everything to everyone... And then I have to follow up with them, and it's a real pain."
"They put too much detail into the emails."
"Covalence's SEAS feature wasn't very user-friendly."
"I would like Covalence to include patching."
"I'd like improved visibility into the backend data where logs are stored, along with integrations with a wider range of products."
"They could use more third-party integrations with other MSP tools."
"While the reporting is good, I would like more of a white-label option with my company's name at the top and a clean look for the report."
"I don't look at only the features and benefits; I also look at the price. It is a bit expensive when compared with other solutions. It is expensive for specific deployment topologies, and the decision-makers go for alternatives like ArcSight. It should also have more AI features or capabilities for better threat intelligence. The more it uses machine learning, the better would be the dashboard, analytics, and other things."
"Integration could be better. They should make it easy to integrate with other solutions."
"IBM QRadar has a margin for development, for out-of-the-box use cases. It can be enhanced with better support and automate the use cases for that."
"It would be good if the program allowed certain profiles to only see certain customer information."
"A lot of information that we receive for the devices is IP-based, but it would help if we could have a default dashboard in which we can add more details about the assets for which we are receiving the information. For example, if it is a Windows or Linux device, we only get the IP for that particular device. We don't really get the name and other details of that particular device. For that, you have to drill down into your own asset management system. It would be good to have a place where we can probably add this information so that we don't have to look into other tools."
"The dashboard is pathetic and it takes a long time to perform a search."
"I would like to see a better GUI."
"The advanced planning management (APM) features should be included."
Field Effect Covalence is ranked 6th in Managed Detection and Response (MDR) with 21 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 10th in Managed Detection and Response (MDR) with 198 reviews. Field Effect Covalence is rated 9.2, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Field Effect Covalence writes "Helps to manage cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and improve our security team's efficiency and security posture ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Field Effect Covalence is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon Complete, SentinelOne Vigilance, Huntress, Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response and Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security. See our Field Effect Covalence vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best Managed Detection and Response (MDR) vendors.
We monitor all Managed Detection and Response (MDR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
