We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and NetCrunch 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."We run 65 servers globally with just two people: an engineering person and me."
"Due to the skills shortage, we are able to use it from the standpoint of bringing in a lower level employee or a person who may not have security knowledge."
"The scalability is very good. It's not a problem."
"The playbook engine is flexible and allows for the graphical visualization of processes, enabling the implementation of dynamic playbooks for incident response or testing."
"IBM Security QRadar has significantly improved our incident response procedures."
"The rule engine is very easy to use — very flexible."
"The most valuable features are log monitoring, easy-to-fix issues, and problem-solving."
"The correlation and the parsing are important features, since it is very important for a SIEM to have a good scalability and performance."
"Reporting on NetCrunch is pretty good. It's very similar to SolarWinds. It's just a different interface. The majority of everything there was beneficial."
"The interface is very old. IBM should remake it into a more modern interface."
"QRadar UBA only keeps the data for a short while (it's refreshed every five minutes) and would be improved if this were extended to a week or month."
"The solution is expensive compared to other products."
"They should speed up the incident response and also, at the same time, reduce the amount of manual effort that is required."
"There is a shortage of skilled individuals with knowledge about the solution. There is training required."
"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."
"From a functionality point of view there are issues sometimes."
"With IBM Security QRadar, my company faced issues with the support we received for the product."
"I didn't care for the role-based, permission-based options, which were not the best."
Earn 20 points
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while NetCrunch is ranked 76th in Log Management. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while NetCrunch is rated 8.0. 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 NetCrunch writes "A network monitoring platform with a useful reporting feature, but permission-based options could be better". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas NetCrunch is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor and Fortinet FortiSIEM. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. NetCrunch 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.