We performed a comparison between Securonix Next-Gen SIEM and Microsoft Sentinel based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Securonix Next-Gen SIEM offers multiple advanced features, such as Spotter for in-depth search and analysis and extensive customization options. Microsoft Sentinel effectively identifies threats and integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft solutions. Users say Sentinel makes it easy to find information quickly using KQL queries and praised the solution’s centralized log storage. Securonix users highlighted the need for greater flexibility in modifying reports and templates and improved analytics and visualization. Microsoft Sentinel could benefit from simplifying documentation, enhancing collaboration with security vendors, and improving data ingestion. Users also want more robust threat intelligence and UEBA features.
Service and Support: Securonix has been praised for its effective support and timely problem resolution. Some users praised Microsoft’s quick response times and expertise, while others experienced challenges and support delays.
Ease of Deployment: Some users found the Securonix Next-Gen SIEM setup to be straightforward, but others found it complex. Some users said that deploying Microsoft Sentinel is straightforward, while others consider it to be moderately complex.
Pricing: Securonix Next-Gen SIEM is competitively priced and more affordable than many SIEM solutions. Microsoft Sentinel charges customers based on data usage, and it can be expensive for users who need to ingest data from non-cloud sources.
ROI: Users say Securonix Next-Gen SIEM offers a significant return on investment by streamlining infrastructure management and enhancing overall efficiency. Some Sentinel users have seen cost savings, while others have not experienced any financial benefits.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Securonix Next-Gen SIEM over Microsoft Sentinel. Users appreciate Securonix's smooth onboarding process, flexibility in features and patches, and ability to manage infrastructure. It stands out for its efficient threat detection, low false positive rate, and integration. Users say that Microsoft Sentinels should improve its data ingestion and simplify documentation.
"The native integration of the Microsoft security solution has been essential because it helps reduce some false positives, especially with some of the impossible travel rules that may be configured in Microsoft 365. For some organizations, that might be benign because they're using VPNs, etc."
"It's easy to use. It's a very good product. It can easily ingest data from anywhere. It has an easily understandable language to perform actions."
"The main benefit is the ease of integration."
"Microsoft Sentinel enables you to ingest data from the entire ecosystem and that connection of data helps you to monitor critical resources and to know what's happening in the environment."
"The automation rules and playbooks are the most useful that I've seen. A number of other places segregate the automation and playbook as separate tools, whereas Microsoft is a SIEM and SOAR tool in one."
"Sentinel is a Microsoft product, so they provide very robust use cases and analytic groups, which are very beneficial for the security team. I also like the ability to integrate data sources into the software for on-premise and cloud-based solutions."
"The in-built SOAR of Sentinel is valuable. Kusto Query Language is also valuable for the ease of writing queries and ease of getting insights from the logs. Schedule-based queries within Sentinel are also valuable. I found these three features most useful for my projects."
"The automation feature is valuable."
"The scalability is one of the remarkable qualities of this product, which makes it very effective, especially when we are dealing with substantial data volumes in the cloud."
"The detection of threats and reduction of false positive alarms as compared to other solutions are valuable features. It has improved threat detection response and reduced a lot of noise from false positives as compared to our previous SIEM solutions."
"The feature that is most valuable is the fact that it's an open platform, so it allows us to modify policies and tune policies as needed. There's also a feature called Data Insights which allows us to create different dashboards on specific things of interest for us."
"The second feature is that within the SNYPR product there is a functionality called Spotter. We use that for link analysis diagrams and to run the stats command. That's extremely useful because it replaces a tedious, manual process we used to use, using Microsoft Excel and a couple of other methods, to bring data together."
"Risk scoring was nice. We could exactly see which user had the highest risk score, and then we could pick it up and work on it."
"The machine-learning algorithms are the most valuable feature because they're able to identify the 'needle in the haystack.'"
"The big data security analytics platform, structured and unstructured data analytics, and user and entity behavior analytics provided by the product are probably the best in the industry."
"Its console is very easy to use and configure. It is very intuitive for our use cases. App integrations are also pretty nice."
"We'd like also a better ticketing system, which is older."
"Sentinel could improve its ticketing and management. A few customers I have worked with liked to take the data created in Sentinel. You can make some basic efforts around that, but the customers wanted to push it to a third-party system so they could set up a proper ticketing management system, like ServiceNow, Jira, etc."
"Everyone has their favorites. There is always room for improvement, and everybody will say, "I wish you could do this for me or that for me." It is a personal thing based on how you use the tool. I do not necessarily have those thoughts, and they are probably not really valuable because they are unique to the context of the user, but broadly, where it can continue to improve is by adding more connectors to more systems."
"Not all information shows up in Sentinel. Sometimes there are items provided in 365 and if you looked in Sentinel you would not see them and therefore think they do not exist. There can be discrepancies between Microsoft tools."
"I would like to see more AI used in processes."
"If I can use Sentinel offline at home and use it on a local network, it would be great. I'm not sure if I can use Sentinel offline versus the tools I have."
"Sentinel should be improved with more connectors. At the moment, it only covers a few vendors. If I remember correctly, only 100 products are supported natively in Sentinel, although you can connect them with syslog. But Microsoft should increase the number of native connectors to get logs into Sentinel."
"It could have a better API to be able to automate many things more extensively and get more extensive data and more expensive deployment possibilities. It can gain some points on the automation part and the integration part. The API is very limited, and I would like to see it extended a bit more."
"Regarding the analysis of security events on the SOC side, Securonix Next-Gen SIEM needs to improve its automation capabilities."
"The analytics-driven approach for finding sophisticated threats and reducing false positives is positive and good, but the platform requires a more dynamic concept. Everything is a bit static."
"It seems to me that within Securonix there is no option for completely visualizing the types of sources or if there is any loss of logs. I've heard that they have an additional module to validate those types of cases, but in terms of the platform itself only, I can only see how often it sends data but not any specific detail."
"We would like a little more face-to-face training. Securonix has several tutorials on its website, but we want there to be a person in Colombia who does training or workshops to give us a better understanding of the platform."
"A helpful feature would be an event export. A way to create more substantial summary reports would be nice."
"We have a lot of users who, because they're engineers and they're bringing down product data - where, at times, a top-level product could be 10,000 or 15,000 objects - it's difficult for us to determine what should be a concern and what shouldn't be a concern. We work with the Securonix folks to try to come up with better ways to identify that."
"The technical support of the solution is an area with shortcomings and needs improvement."
"It could be improved a little bit more for admin users. There should be more administrative options related to security for admin users. For example, for forensic purposes, the admin should be able to stop a specific user from erasing some information. I would be helpful in certain situations, such as during an internal fraud."
Microsoft Sentinel is ranked 1st in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 85 reviews while Securonix Next-Gen SIEM is ranked 7th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 27 reviews. Microsoft Sentinel is rated 8.2, while Securonix Next-Gen SIEM is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Sentinel writes "Gives a comprehensive and holistic view of the ecosystem and improves visibility and the ability to respond". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Securonix Next-Gen SIEM writes "Spotter tool has helped us eliminate many hours required to manually create link analysis diagrams". Microsoft Sentinel is most compared with AWS Security Hub, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Splunk Enterprise Security and Elastic Security, whereas Securonix Next-Gen SIEM is most compared with IBM Security QRadar, Splunk Enterprise Security, LogRhythm SIEM, Exabeam Fusion SIEM and Gurucul UEBA. See our Microsoft Sentinel vs. Securonix Next-Gen SIEM 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.