We performed a comparison between McAfee ESM and Rapid7 InsightIDR 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 thing that Devo does better than other solutions is to give me the ability to write queries that look at multiple data sources and run fast. Most SIEMs don't do that. And I can do that by creating entity-based queries. Let's say I have a table which has Okta, a table which has G Suite, a table which has endpoint telemetry, and I have a table which has DNS telemetry. I can write a query that says, 'Join all these things together on IP, and where the IP matches in all these tables, return to me that subset of data, within these time windows.' I can break it down that way."
"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."
"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."
"Devo helps us to unlock the full power of our data because they have more than 450 parsers, which means that we can ingest pretty much any type of log data."
"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."
"It's very, very versatile."
"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 ability to have high performance, high-speed search capability is incredibly important for us. When it comes to doing security analysis, you don't want to be doing is sitting around waiting to get data back while an attacker is sitting on a network, actively attacking it. You need to be able to answer questions quickly. If I see an indicator of attack, I need to be able to rapidly pivot and find data, then analyze it and find more data to answer more questions. You need to be able to do that quickly. If I'm sitting around just waiting to get my first response, then it ends up moving too slow to keep up with the attacker. Devo's speed and performance allows us to query in real-time and keep up with what is actually happening on the network, then respond effectively to events."
"The ease of use is the most valuable feature. Over the years I have always been using this solution and have become comfortable with it."
"I like the ease of deployment."
"It enables us to detect malicious threats, issues, or vulnerabilities in our network."
"It is user-friendly. The notification part of McAfee ESM is very easy."
"McAfee as a whole is a good solution."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation rules."
"The most valuable features of McAfee ESM are intrusion detection, malware protection, and the device controller."
"The most valuable feature in ESM is its search and reporting feature. It's really nice."
"Simple configuration and automatically syncs to the cloud platform."
"The biggest reason why we chose Rapid7 was to gain value in a really quick time. Its deployment doesn't take months. It just takes a few days."
"Very intuitive and easy to set up."
"Rapid7 InsightIDR integrates well with other solutions. It's also easy to configure because Rapid7 InsightIDR has a lot of instructions posted on their website that customers can follow if they need to get the source log."
"It is a very stable solution."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the ability to parse different log types. I would go as far as to say the product is deficient in its ability to parse multiple, different log types, including logs from major vendors that are supported by competitors. Additionally, the time that it takes to turn around a supported parser for customers and common log source types, which are generally accepted standards in the industry, is not acceptable. This has impacted customer onboarding and customer relationships for us on multiple fronts."
"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support could be better."
"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."
"There should be support for multitenancy in the product."
"I would like to see good analytics in future releases."
"The support from McAfee ESM could improve. They could improve the speed."
"The initial setup is difficult and could improve."
"We acquired the IBM product because McAfee is slightly confusing to use, and it's broader."
"It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM. The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console. They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee."
"Cloud integration has room for improvement because they're not full-fledged to integrate with the cloud solutions that come. They use different integration platforms to bring in data, and that needs to be improved."
"It cannot integrate with our Next-Generation Firewall and few applications such as Cisco ACI."
"Inability to get access to compliance reports within the solution."
"One of the things that could be better is digital forensics. It is there, but it can be better. They could provide more on the endpoint detection level."
"InsightIDR is only available in a cloud version. Some of our customers prefer an on-prem solution because they want to manage the security within their environment."
"The dashboard is an area that could be simplified."
"Lacks a mobile application."
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
McAfee ESM is ranked 24th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 8 reviews while Rapid7 InsightIDR is ranked 13th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 5 reviews. McAfee ESM is rated 6.2, while Rapid7 InsightIDR is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of McAfee ESM writes "A security information and event management solution with a useful search and reporting feature, but cloud integration could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightIDR writes "Initial setup is quick, there is no need to pay for hardware, and it's easy to scale". McAfee ESM is most compared with IBM QRadar, Splunk, ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM), FireEye Helix and SolarWinds Security Event Manager , whereas Rapid7 InsightIDR is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Darktrace, Splunk, IBM QRadar and Rapid7 InsightVM. See our McAfee ESM vs. Rapid7 InsightIDR 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.
