IBM Security Guardium Data Protection vs McAfee Vulnerability Manager for Databases [EOL] comparison

"Guardium is easily integrated with other IBM solutions, a significant advantage and a key reason we chose Guardium. Both platforms share the IBM infrastructure, enhancing compatibility and integration. Additionally, Guardium offers a vulnerability analyzer, which is another compelling feature of the platform."

"It's allowing us to be more proactive than reactive on alerts and access rights and types of resources that are being hit. Before, there were a lot of different solutions, but this expanded that out and made it a more holistic solution. It provides centralization of monitoring, instead of multiple, disparate applications. It definitely allows more economies of scale, streamlining, less fragmented use."

"Ease of deployment is a valuable feature."

"One of the most valuable features is the accelerator. It has a predefined report for PCI SOX compliance and other compliances."

"It provides us regulatory compliance proof and evidence for audit."

"The most valuable features have been how easy it is to deploy and use, as well as the comprehensive monitoring options. These are a few things that customers like most about this product."

"The possible number of databases and database servers which can be monitored by Guardium is high. For me, this is a differentiator of IBM."

"he solution offers trouble-free access."

"The technical support is good; they are knowledgeable."

"The support is very good. They are very quick to respond when we have issues."

"The feature I have found most valuable is activity monitoring."

"Sometimes the performance is not good, and also sometimes we have sudden bugs causing difficulties."

"An area for improvement would be the user interface - currently, it takes around two to three months to become comfortable using it."

"​Overall testing and quality need improvement. It is fairly buggy at times, so it feels like it could use additional staff on the product, testing and trying it out."

"More automation, user guides, and tips would make this solution better."

"An improvement would be to make the pricing relative in terms of regions."

"The user interface could be improved and modernized."

"We are currently facing a challenge because it does not offer data encryption by default, only data masking."

"It was difficult implementing it, configuring it, getting it up and running and in production. However, since then, I believe it has stabilized."

"The UI needs to be improved."

"Technical support could be more responsive."

"In the next feature, I'd like to see more integrations and updates overall, specifically bottom tech."

"It's an expensive solution"

"Reasonable cost but could be lower."

"One of the deployments that I know of had three databases, and the yearly fees are approximately $50,000 USD."

"The price of the solution could be better."

"The product's pricing is reasonable and affordable. It is in the moderate range."

"The biggest challenge is the cost associated with the product, and the cost of maintaining. Everything is not translated directly to the benefits we see. There are benefits, yes, but if I were writing the check, would I buy Guardium? No."

"IBM Guardium Data Protection charges you based on the number of users, e.g. based on the number of licenses, and it's either on a per-license or a per-data basis."

"The price of Guardium is higher than the main competitor, Imperva. In addition, it's complex as the calculation of the licensing is done by Processor Value Unit (PVU). However, before purchasing a DAP solution, it is important to analyze specific points to evaluate the cost-benefit of each tool. For example: Does the environment to be monitored have mainframes? If so, it's a point for Guardium. If not, a point for Imperva. Note: IBM is looking into a new licensing policy and reducing the price of Guardium."

"It's not expensive compared to other products that are available."