Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

NetWitness Platform vs Snare comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 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

NetWitness Platform
Ranking in Log Management
35th
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
31st
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Snare
Ranking in Log Management
38th
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
41st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Log Management category, the mindshare of NetWitness Platform is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Snare is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Log Management
 

Featured Reviews

MOTASHIM Al Razi - PeerSpot reviewer
It is a stable solution, but they should make the user interface easier to understand
The solution's initial setup takes work. We have to organize multiple paths and many features. The deployment process takes less than a week. But it takes a month to complete if we want to make the solution smarter by integrating it with various devices. I rate the process as a six out of ten.
Frank Eargle - PeerSpot reviewer
A highly scalable solution that is easy to manage and super easy to set up
We use Snare for picking up Windows logs, and we used to use it for SQL as well. We had used it for Linux once or twice. We're mainly using it for Windows and Windows flat files The most valuable feature of Snare is flexibility or the ability to filter all things you don't want and don't have…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Their technical support responds quickly and are knowledgable."
"The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult."
"The most valuable features are the threat prediction and network forensics."
"Possibility to investigate incidents based on logs and raw packets, such as extracting files sent over the network"
"The most valuable feature is the ability to write rules and triggers for network communication, and then being able to investigate based on that."
"Alerting Module: It provides real-time event processing language on all the logs/packets stream for advanced alerting, i.e., using SQL LIKE statements."
"The most valuable feature is the security that it provides."
"I can have enterprise security, email security, next generation firewall security log, HIDS and NIDS logs, etc. all on the same dashboard. It makes it easy to pinpoint or correlate our server to this. I can find out if there is lateral movement. This is the biggest advantage of this solution."
"The best thing about Snare is its format and consistency."
"Snare has good agents, especially for Windows."
"The most valuable feature of Snare is flexibility or the ability to filter all things you don't want and don't have security value."
 

Cons

"The solution should have more integration capabilities with different platforms."
"There is no support for this product in this country, so problems have to be resolved through global technical teams."
"The log system is a bit complex and has room for improvement."
"Log aggregation is an issue with this solution because there are a huge number of alerts in a single instance."
"The documentation is not as structured as I would like, personally, and I think that it can be improved and made much more user-friendly."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Sometimes, it gives me static when integrating Windows-based systems. It should produce a precise log of sorts as to where the problem is. For example, a few days ago because of the McAfee application firewall, I couldn't get access to the particular Windows machine. So, my team and I had to figure out by ourselves that there was a virus responsible for the obstacle. This solution should trigger a meaningful log or message indicating the reason the user or implementer can't get into the machine."
"The initial setup is very complex and should be simplified."
"The solution is now developing a SIEM-like feature on Snare Central Server, but it's not complete yet."
"Snare should modernize its GUI a little bit."
"Users will initially find it difficult to identify the event types and installation in Snare."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It provides tools to assist in selecting the appropriate license and usage scenarios."
"The new pricing and licensing mechanisms are fair. I would advise always to get the full solution (i.e., not only Logs)."
"We have a perpetual license, so the total cost of ownership is not very expensive. It's a good investment."
"We have yearly licensing costs. The license fee can be based on the volume of EPS. Some organizations may have, as a gentlemanly gesture, 10,000 EPS and get a 3,000 EPS license but actually use 5,000 EPS."
"The tool is very expensive, so I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. The solution has an annual subscription."
"We are on an annual license for the use of the solution."
"Many clients are not able to purchase the packet capability because there is a huge amount of data, and the cost depends on the number of EPS (Events per second), as well as the number of gigabytes of data per day."
"The licenses are good but the cost is very expensive."
"Snare is a cheap solution because a lot of customers are using it."
"Snare has reasonable pricing."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate Snare's pricing a four out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Log Management solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Feb 26, 2015
HP ArcSight vs. IBM QRadar vs. ​McAfee Nitro vs. Splunk vs. RSA Security vs. LogRhythm
We at Infosecnirvana.com have done several posts on SIEM. After the Dummies Guide on SIEM, we are following it up with a SIEM Product Comparison – 101 deck. So, here it is for your viewing pleasure. Let me know what you think by posting your comments below. The key products compared here are…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about NetWitness Platform?
The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetWitness Platform?
The pricing is comparable to others, and I consider the cost to be intermediate. Specific cost details are unknown to me.
What needs improvement with NetWitness Platform?
There is currently no need for improvement in the SIEM ( /categories/security-information-and-event-management-siem ), though there could be potential enhancements by integrating with AI.
What do you like most about Snare?
The best thing about Snare is its format and consistency.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Snare?
Snare is a cheap solution because a lot of customers are using it.
What needs improvement with Snare?
Users will initially find it difficult to identify the event types and installation in Snare.
 

Also Known As

RSA Security Analytics
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Los Angeles World Airports, Reply
Military, Defence and Security Agencies, Banking Finance and Insurance companies, Retail, Health and Utilities.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetWitness Platform vs. Snare and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.