Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Graylog Security vs Trellix ESM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Graylog Security
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
39th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Trellix ESM
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
27th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) category, the mindshare of Graylog Security is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix ESM is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
 

Featured Reviews

Tony Zafiropoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Aggregates logs in one place and helps to review data points
We tried Graylog Security, starting with their inexpensive open-source version. We tested it out and continued using it for a while. As for the main differences between Graylog Security and other vendors, some users might prefer cloud-based platforms over on-premises solutions. It isn't inherently cloud-native, but that might not matter much for some.
Daniel Durian - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to monitor and detect cyberattacks
The tool's effectiveness depends on how you define your log sources. To build visibility of incoming and outgoing traffic, you need logs from perimeter defense, firewalls, web application firewalls, and endpoint protection. With good traffic visibility, incident response time is really quick. Trellix ESM provides situation awareness. On the dashboard, I can see outbound and inbound communications to known threat hosts, IPS/IDS activity, and threat intelligence of the perimeter defense in the firewall. This information helps preempt attacks.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We use the solution to collect logs."
"The tool aggregates logs. We can see the logs in one place."
"The solution is 100% stable. We really have had a great time working with it. It hasn't let us down."
"It is easy to use and deploy. It comes with user-friendly manuals."
"The most valuable feature for us is that it comes with many correlations, reports, and dashboards already available. It's also very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation rules."
"This solution integrates easily and very well with other technologies."
"The support I have received from the vendor has been great."
"It is easy to use."
"It is a good central viewpoint for issues. These can then be investigated in more detail on the subnet server(s)/endpoints."
 

Cons

"Graylog Security needs to incorporate security scorecards."
"The support from McAfee ESM could improve. They could improve the speed."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The only issue I have with McAfee is the amount of computer resources that it takes... it's definitely impacting some of the other applications that are running on a computer at the same time."
"It cannot integrate with our Next-Generation Firewall and few applications such as Cisco ACI."
"The solution needs to improve case management. The UI is confusing."
"There should be support for multitenancy in the product."
"It seems McAfee does test its product before releasing. When we - not only us, other companies also - deploy McAfee, we face multiple issues from the customer side, after which, McAfee reacts and fixes the bugs."
"It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM. The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console. They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The cost is all included. The finance department handles the financial part, and we mostly don't get involved in it."
"You should buy the distributed option instead of the all-in-one for environments with more than 1000 end points."
"The product is slightly expensive."
"The pricing is fair."
"The pricing is good, and they are competitive compared to providers such as RSA and IBM QRadar."
"The price of McAfee ESM is higher than some of the other solutions. There are additional features that can be added at an additional fee."
"When compared to IBM Security QRadar and other similar platforms, the pricing of McAfee ESM is reasonable and comparatively less expensive."
"Regarding pricing, Trellix ESM is not that expensive. It's less than half the cost of IBM QRadar."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Feb 26, 2015
HP ArcSight vs. IBM QRadar vs. ​McAfee Nitro vs. Splunk vs. RSA Security vs. LogRhythm
We at Infosecnirvana.com have done several posts on SIEM. After the Dummies Guide on SIEM, we are following it up with a SIEM Product Comparison – 101 deck. So, here it is for your viewing pleasure. Let me know what you think by posting your comments below. The key products compared here are…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
24%
Educational Organization
8%
University
6%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Educational Organization
72%
Financial Services Firm
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
Comms Service Provider
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Graylog Security?
The tool aggregates logs. We can see the logs in one place.
What needs improvement with Graylog Security?
Graylog Security needs to incorporate security scorecards.
What do you like most about McAfee ESM?
The solution's technical support is great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee ESM?
Regarding pricing, Trellix ESM is not that expensive. It's less than half the cost of IBM QRadar.
What needs improvement with McAfee ESM?
The product is mature and needs little improvement, but we could enhance the customized dashboarding based on use cases.
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee ESM, NitroSecurity, McAfee Enterprise Security Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
San Francisco Police Credit Union, Wªstenrot Gruppe, Volusion, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Government of New Brunswick, State of Colorado, Macquarie Telecom, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Cologne Bonn Airport
Find out what your peers are saying about Graylog Security vs. Trellix ESM and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.