We performed a comparison between IBM QRadar and Seceon Open Threat Management Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."
"The most powerful feature is the way the data is stored and extracted. The data is always stored in its original format and you can normalize the data after it has been stored."
"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."
"Devo provides a multi-tenant, cloud-native architecture. This is critical for managed service provider environments or multinational organizations who may have subsidiaries globally. It gives organizations a way to consolidate their data in a single accessible location, yet keep the data separate. This allows for global views and/or isolated views restricted by access controls by company or business unit."
"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."
"It's very, very versatile."
"The UBA feature is the most valuable because you can see everything about users' activities."
"The QNI feature is the one I am very interested in, and I have also been interested in Watson. From the log analysis and the security perspective, we are able to dive deep into any of the logs and anomalies."
"The best part of this solution is having a third-party SOC."
"I like that it's easy to use and the performance is good."
"The flexibility is good in terms of pulling log files."
"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 features that I have found most valuable are that it is very stable, easy to get going, and easy to manage. It is also easy to review all incidents."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is it has very good data correlation."
"The main thing is the value proposition. It is one of the most sophisticated yet affordable solutions that I've come across. It is also one of the easiest-to-manage yet comprehensive solutions for a SOC analyst. Its customizations are really good, and it has a lot of integrations. It is multi-tenant and very fast to onboard. Its stability is 100%. We've never had an outage with it. It doesn't require extensive hardware resources. Its level of support is also very good. They have a very responsive technical team."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are behaviour analytics, threat intelligence, endpoint detection, and response features."
"One major area for improvement for Devo... is to provide more capabilities around pre-built monitoring. They're working on integrations with different types of systems, but that integration needs to go beyond just onboarding to the platform. It needs to include applications, out-of-the-box, that immediately help people to start monitoring their systems. Such applications would include dashboards and alerts, and then people could customize them for their own needs so that they aren't starting from a blank slate."
"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."
"An admin who is trying to audit user activity usually cannot go beyond a day in the UI. I would like to have access to pages and pages of that data, going back as far as the storage we have, so I could look at every command or search or deletion or anything that a user has run. As an admin, that would really help. Going back just a day in the UI is not going to help, and that means I have to find a different way to do that."
"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."
"The overall performance of extraction could be a lot faster, but that's a common problem in this space in general. Also, the stock or default alerting and detecting options could definitely be broader and more all-encompassing. The fact that they're not is why we had to write all our own alerts."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"Devo has a lot of cloud connectors, but they need to do a little bit of work there. They've got good integrations with the public cloud, but there are a lot of cloud SaaS systems that they still need to work with on integrations, such as Salesforce and other SaaS providers where we need to get access logs."
"I need a solution which will send alerts in the event of any behavior."
"The solution lacks some maturity."
"It doesn't have a SOAR system by default. You need to purchase it additionally, which is the main problem with QRadar."
"Technical support could be improved by a bit."
"I have noticed the interface has room for improvement."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"This solution is on-premise and many customers are moving to the cloud base solution."
"When it comes to what could be better, it is always what others are trying to do and what is the roadmap. It can have more integration. It should have more flexible RESTful APIs for integration with applications. These are the things that are always in demand for any of the SIEM solutions, not only for QRadar. Integration is ever-evolving. Nowadays, different versions of mobile handsets are there and data is getting scattered. Users are using their personal handsets to keep the data of the organization. So, it should have a more flexible integration, irrespective of the flavor of the firmware and iOS or Android version. It should have an API that can seamlessly get integrated. It should also provide more flexible control and a more advanced or analytical view to see what exactly is happening across the globe or network. From wherever a user is connecting and accessing the enterprise data, it should give real-time visibility and predictive visibility about what exactly is happening. These things are already there, but there should be more advanced control in terms of managing the security."
"It is a standalone solution now. They need to make it into a cloud-based subscription model. It needs more compatibility for co-managed solutions. It can also have more threats and deeper integration with Microsoft."
"The product could be improved by including sandboxing capabilities in the next release."
"It would be ideal with the processing was more manageable. Not many customers are willing to have a dedicated server with two CPUs and one TB of memory. The cost of this is huge for a smaller organization."
More Seceon Open Threat Management Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
IBM QRadar is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 72 reviews while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is ranked 23rd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 3 reviews. IBM QRadar is rated 8.0, while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM QRadar writes "Provides a single window into your network, SIEM, network flows, and risk management of your assets". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seceon Open Threat Management Platform writes "Very fast, easy to set up, and makes rule creation simple". IBM QRadar is most compared with Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic Security, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM and Wazuh, whereas Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk, Elastic Security, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM and DNIF. See our IBM QRadar vs. Seceon Open Threat Management Platform report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
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.
