"The strength of Devo is not only in that it is pretty intuitive, but it gives you the flexibility and creativity to merge feeds. The prime examples would be using the synthesis or union tables that give you phenomenal capabilities... The ability to use a synthesis or union table to combine all those feeds and make heads or tails of what's going on, and link it to go down a thread, is functionality that I hadn't seen before."
"Even if it's a relatively technical tool or platform, it's very intuitive and graphical. It's very appealing in terms of the user interface. The UI has a graphically interface with the raw data in a table. The table can be as big as you want it, depending on your use case. You can easily get a report combining your data, along with calculations and graphical dashboards. You don't need a lot of training, because the UI is relatively very intuitive."
"It's very, very versatile."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ability that Devo has to ingest data. From the previous SIEM that I came from and helped my company administer, it really was the type of system where data was parsed on ingest. This meant that if you didn't build the parser efficiently or correctly, sometimes that would bring the system to its knees. You'd have a backlog of processing the logs as it was ingesting them."
"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."
"Those 400 days of hot data mean that people can look for trends and at what happened in the past. And they can not only do so from a security point of view, but even for operational use cases. In the past, our operational norm was to keep live data for only 30 days. Our users were constantly asking us for at least 90 days, and we really couldn't even do that. That's one reason that having 400 days of live data is pretty huge. As our users start to use it and adopt this system, we expect people to be able to do those long-term analytics."
"The real-time analytics of security-related data are super. There are a lot of data feeds going into it and it's very quick at pulling up and correlating the data and showing you what's going on in your infrastructure. It's fast. The way that their architecture and technology works, they've really focused on the speed of query results and making sure that we can do what we need to do quickly. Devo is pulling back information in a fast fashion, based on real-time events."
"The user interface is really modern. As an end-user, there are a lot of possibilities to tailor the platform to your needs, and that can be done without needing much support from Devo. It's really flexible and modular. The UI is very clean."
"I like that it's easy. It's got the protection set up, and we can see whatever is required. We write our own rules and the rules that we can input. I think it is good."
"It is kind of simple and very easily deployable. You can start working with it very fast."
"The integration is very useful and very easy. You can have an API connection with any cloud and I'll be able to do both ways of communication with the help of APA."
"The product offers very strong automation. Our cyber security analysts don't have to correlate the information to detect problems. They only need to analyze problems that have been identified by the platform."
"My favorite feature is the application vulnerability scanner."
"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"There is room for improvement in the ability to parse different log types. I would go as far as to say the product is deficient in its ability to parse multiple, different log types, including logs from major vendors that are supported by competitors. Additionally, the time that it takes to turn around a supported parser for customers and common log source types, which are generally accepted standards in the industry, is not acceptable. This has impacted customer onboarding and customer relationships for us on multiple fronts."
"There's room for improvement within the GUI. There is also some room for improvement within the native parsers they support. But I can say that about pretty much any solution in this space."
"From our experience, the Devo agent needs some work. They built it on top of OS Query's open-source framework. It seems like it wasn't tuned properly to handle a large volume of Windows event logs. In our experience, there would definitely be some room for improvement. A lot of SIEMs on the market have their own agent infrastructure. I think Devo's working towards that, but I think that it needs some improvement as far as keeping up with high-volume environments."
"Some third-parties don't have specific API connectors built, so we had to work with Devo to get the logs and parse the data using custom parsers, rather than an out-of-the-box solution."
"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."
"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."
"It should have more cloud connectors. It could also be cheaper."
"We have certain challenges with integrating the SOAR platform with multiple vendors."
"Sometimes the rules are disabled by FireEye, and we basically get it after the patch. I think there needs to be a better way of creating the application rules. I would like to see better pricing for our licensing."
"The graphical user interface could be improved. It's not easy to handle and it's not easy for a customer or end-user to learn how to manage the solution."
"They should stick to the roadmap and continue to build plugins and integrations with other third parties, enhance the UI, and enhance the reporting. It's all good. They should just continue enhancing the releases."
"The threat intelligence module needs a better dashboard."
More ServiceNow Security Operations Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
FireEye Helix is ranked 19th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 4 reviews while ServiceNow Security Operations is ranked 7th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 2 reviews. FireEye Helix is rated 8.8, while ServiceNow Security Operations is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of FireEye Helix writes "We can have an API connection with any cloud, the integration is very easy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ServiceNow Security Operations writes "SN SecOps offers a great set of features to better ingest information from Detection, SIEM, Vulnerability, and Threat Intelligent apps to better manage SecOps and ITSM". FireEye Helix is most compared with Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, McAfee ESM, IBM QRadar and Elastic SIEM, whereas ServiceNow Security Operations is most compared with Splunk Phantom, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, IBM Resilient, Fortinet FortiSOAR and Exabeam Fusion SIEM.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.
