No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM Resilient vs Logpoint comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 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

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
IBM Resilient
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
18th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Security Incident Response (7th)
Logpoint
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (34th), Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (31st), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (15th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (38th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.8%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Resilient is 2.3%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Logpoint is 1.9%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq3.8%
IBM Resilient2.3%
Logpoint1.9%
Other92.0%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at Swimlane
Automation has streamlined multi-tenant SOC workflows and improves alert handling efficiency
Although the reporting within Torq is not that great, we did ask for many features regarding reporting in Torq, but due to some platform constraints, they could not make the whole dataset available for us to be used in reporting. Except for that, we used some basic reporting. When I used Torq, it was indeed in the early stages of AI capabilities. Only a few customers were allowed to use it, and we were among them. It functioned well as long as we summarized the data properly. If you input garbage, you would get garbage out. Thus, we had to do significant fine-tuning regarding what data context we provided to the AI orchestrator to get meaningful results. In terms of Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management compared to managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find it case-centric. The unified view in case management is good since it provides clarity, although there are limitations regarding how many items in case management can be modified at once. Bulk operations are very limited, potentially due to their back-end database or data retrieval processes that can be improved. Regarding improvements for Torq, when we were onboarded, there were aspects we were uncertain about, such as the number of cases that could be generated, what data we could bring in, how many clients we could onboard, and similar concerns. Initially, we also lacked clarity about the number of playbooks or workflows we could build. Different triggers like system triggers, case-based triggers, and others can be employed without restrictions, but when it comes to on-demand and scheduled jobs, there is a limitation based on the subscription and pricing tier that notably caps the number of workflows we can create. No bulk editing across cases was one issue, along with limited filtering related to single grouping constraints. Additionally, the out-of-the-box case templates provided require substantial modifications before they become usable. There is also a feature in the cases for notes that cannot be searched. They are only visible through the UI, which is another area for improvement. The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially. I am not sure if new customers are made aware of this. It seems that workflows revolving around cases hinder functionality outside of case management, as we have many use cases needing on-demand triggers and schedules for functions like reporting or polling devices. Creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers. While they facilitate optimization and scaling, the support received tends to be very basic. Improvements can be made in that area as well.
ZaidHaddad - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Seller at Alawtad group
Suitable for different industries and ensures effective incident response
IBM Resilient is great in many aspects like its wide range of integrations and customizable playbooks. However, one thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading. Despite this, it stands out for incident response, case management, task organization, and team collaboration, making it a strong choice for organizations compared to competitors like Demisto Palo Alto. When it comes to additional features, I think IBM Resilient is on the right track with its AI capabilities, like linking related incidents and providing recommended actions. It would be nice to see more enhancements in this area, but overall, it looks good.
Rifat Hasan - PeerSpot reviewer
System Engineer at Corporate Projukti Limited
Has lacked proper integration and consistent support communication
I selected Logpoint for the pricing as it is reasonable. I am located in Bangladesh, South Asia, Dhaka. I have tried to contact Exabeam by mail repeatedly, but there has been no response. My company, Corporate Projukti Limited, including my Bangladesh area head, technical director, and team manager, have sent emails to contact Exabeam solution, but there is no response. There is already a distributor in Bangladesh. The weakness with Logpoint is UEBA. UEBA is recommended, but not extra. Exabeam's UEBA is an extra feature. SOAR is extra, but Logpoint's product measurement is 40 or 50. There is a 10% difference with the UEBA and SOAR, so Logpoint is weak there. I would appreciate extra features in Logpoint such as SOAR. SOAR and UEBA are included features in Logpoint. Logpoint's UEBA is a weak point, while Exabeam's UEBA has extra AI through automation. Exabeam has a license included, and the extra license is an add-on. In Logpoint, it is included, which makes it a weak point.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Torq has exceeded expectations by delivering workflows in a timely and lower effort manner than XSOAR, and it meets all my needs while saving a ton of time and targeting $600,000 saved this year, which is a substantial amount of money."
"Since we started working with Torq, I am handling much fewer alerts, it is becoming really easy for me to handle an alert, I have all the information that I need, I do not need to connect to different vendors to receive this information, and the main thing I got from Torq is time, which now helps me to build another automated system and learn."
"Under one SOC tool in Torq, analysts get to know everything within the context of an alert or incident they are working on, and this ability to view the whole picture within Torq is one of the major breakthroughs and best offerings of Torq."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution is reliable in our usage."
"The most valuable thing about it is how easy it is to navigate the user interface."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"This is a good solution that we recommend for customers."
"The product is very good at incident response."
"Its flexibility is the most valuable."
"The UEBA component, as well as the SOAR component, are some of the most valuable features of Logpoint."
"The most valuable feature of LogPoint is that they have the SIEM and SOAR combined in one solution. They are not on a separate platform."
"For on-premises, it is the best solution."
"Even if I bash a lot on LogPoint, I must say that it's a bang for the buck product."
"The flexibility of the search feature and the solution's analytics features are the most valuable parts of the solution, and it's also very user-friendly."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most beneficial was being able to prove, with proper reports, that from a compliance perspective, the company is in control. The service part of LogPoint did modifications or did some additional work to have the proper reports defined."
"The technical support for Logpoint is very good, and I would rate it as nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well."
"IBM Resilient could integrate better with my tools."
"One thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading."
"The initial setup is not straightforward or simple. It's quite complex."
"Its price and technical support need improvement."
"Right now, sometimes it can take up to two to three months to resolve an issue, which is far too long."
"The tool needs to improve its documentation on license scripts."
"The implementation could be a bit simpler."
"The response time of the support is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"They are not in the US market, and the quality of support has declined."
"Dashboards could be developed further."
"LogPoint must find a way to integrate the servers without agents."
"One of the downsides is it is not a SaaS solution. It must be on-premises."
"The thing that makes it a little bit challenging is when you run into a situation where you have logs that are not easily parsable. If a log has a very specific structure, it is very easy to parse and create a parser for it, but if a log has a free form, meaning that it is of any length or it can change at any time, handling such a log is very challenging, not just in LogPoint but also in everything else. Everybody struggles with that scenario, and LogPoint is also in the same boat. One-third of logs are of free form or not of a specific length, and you can run into situations where it is almost impossible to parse the log, even if they try to help you. It is just the nature of the beast."
"I would rate the stability of Logpoint as a six out of ten. I have received reports indicating glitches and downtimes with Logpoint."
"Logpoint is not flexible. Its documentation is not user-friendly."
"My issues with the product are mainly with regard to how it handles collecting logs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is very expensive."
"Pricing for the solution is good, in my opinion."
"I feel it is an expensive product when my company pays annually for renewal, support, and follow-up."
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a three out of ten. The tool’s pricing is on a yearly basis."
"There is a license you need to pay for in order to use this product."
"We could create unlimited users using the license we had purchased."
"There are no costs except for the support services that our company pays in addition to the licensing charges attached to the solution."
"The licensing cost for IBM Resilient is not too expensive, but it's not affordable, so it's moderately expensive. Regarding price, I'm rating the solution seven out of ten. The company pays for the license yearly, based on the number of users. Apart from the cost of the license you need to pay for each user, you also need to spend an initial investment for the base platform. You also have to pay for IBM Resilient support."
"It has a fixed price, which is what I like about LogPoint. I bought the system and paid for it, and I pay maintenance. It is not a consumption model. Most SIEMs or most of the log management systems are consumption-based, which means that you pay for how many logs you have in the system. That's a real problem because logs can grow very quickly in different circumstances, and when you have a variable price model, you never know what you're going to pay. Splunk is notoriously expensive for that reason. If you use Splunk or QRadar, it becomes expensive because there are not just the logs; you also have to parse the logs and create indexes. Those indexes can be very expensive in terms of space. Therefore, if they charge you by this space, you can end up paying a significant amount of money. It can be more than what you expect to pay. I like the fact that LogPoint has a fixed cost. I know what I'm going to pay on a yearly basis. I pay that, and I pay the maintenance, and I just make it work."
"My company used to pay for LogPoint costs annually. It's a cost-effective solution. I'm not part of the Finance team, though, so I'm not sure exactly what the licensing fee is or what license my company had."
"Logpoint's pricing is mid-ranged and depends on the number of devices."
"It's less expensive than the competitors. The Logpoint marketing team is very accommodating and client-friendly. They offer very good reductions in price. They are pretty good in this aspect. They are transparent in their licensing and pricing."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I would rate LogPoint's pricing a seven. It is not very expensive compared to some of the more costly products, and it is not very cheap compared to some of the cheaper products in the SIEM market."
"LogPoint seemed like it was a good product, but it was expensive and there wasn't any room to move the pricing when customers needed a lower-costing solution."
"Our licensing fees are about $10,000 USD per month, which I think is fair."
"It's getting more expensive, which is one of the reasons we're looking around just to see if there's anything better value."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
6%
Construction Company
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
I do not dislike anything about Torq because it has satisfied all of our use cases and requirements. We contacted sup...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
Initially, we were using Slack for small automations, such as creating pipelines or shutting down servers. For exampl...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I have been working for five years with experience in the IT field. Torq is very good. It manages everything. I would...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Resilient?
I am not the one in charge of pricing, so I am not sure about the costs.
What needs improvement with IBM Resilient?
Integration with some devices, including Cisco PowerPower and certain antivirus products, has limitations.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LogPoint?
I rate the pricing at eight, suggesting it's relatively good or affordable.
What needs improvement with LogPoint?
I selected Logpoint for the pricing as it is reasonable. I am located in Bangladesh, South Asia, Dhaka. I have tried ...
What is your primary use case for LogPoint?
I had experience with Logpoint before, and I contacted the Exabeam solution, but there was no response; they did not ...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Golden Living, Health Equity, USA Funds
AP Pension, Copenhagen Airports, KMD, Terma, DISA, Danish Crown, Durham City Council, Game, TopDanmark, Lahti Energia, Energi Midt, Synoptik, Eissmann Group Automotive, Aligro, CG50...
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Resilient vs. Logpoint and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.