We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Nagios Log Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is flexible and easy to use."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the integration capabilities on offer."
"We are using the platform version, which I like."
"It has improved my efficiency."
"It is a bit easier to use than other products, such as Splunk or ELK Elasticsearch."
"The features that I have found most valuable in QRadar are its data enrichment, use case creations, and adding references - those kinds of features are very good. Also QRadar's event filtration and device integration are perfect."
"The most valuable features are the versatility of this solution and the variety of things you can do with it."
"It allows us to search data both on-premises and on the cloud."
"One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"The product is scalable."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"It doesn't have a SOAR system by default. You need to purchase it additionally, which is the main problem with QRadar."
"QRadar's performance has room for improvement because it cannot handle the volume. I need massive amounts of logs from various devices in our existing network architecture. IBM needs to improve QRadar's capacity to handle more logs."
"I think that the search speed of this solution could be improved."
"I would like for Yara to be supported by all components."
"I would like to see a more user-friendly product."
"QRadar log integration of various applications can be a tough job at times. There may be occasions when you will not find any QRadar guide on adding logs of a particular application. Even if you come across one, adding a log process is not an easy one."
"The only problem is that if you have too many events that occur, then the storage capacity becomes a problem. We would need to increase the storage capacity."
"I have noticed the interface has room for improvement."
"The support could be better."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Nagios Log Server is ranked 38th in Log Management with 5 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas Nagios Log Server is most compared with Wazuh, Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng and Elastic Security. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Nagios Log Server report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.