IBM Resilient Reviews

I mainly use it for automating and simplifying incident response workflows, focusing on basic tasks in security orchestration.

IBM Resilient is an okay tool overall, and the most valuable thing about it is how easy it is to navigate the user interface.

I have found IBM Resilient lacking in integration capabilities, which can be frustrating. It is not very straightforward to set up custom integrations, especially with services like Azure. You need an additional server for integration. Also, the custom security features need improvement. Currently, it doesn't work well with many vendors, and there are compatibility issues, like not working with group IP. Also, keeping the platform up-to-date with patches, firewalls, security, and upgrades is crucial to avoid problems with deployments and conversions.

I have been using IBM Resilient for almost three years.

I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability. IBM Resilient is stable, especially for on-premises deployments when set up correctly. It is reliable because it focuses on its core role as a source for incident response without too many extra functions.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten because it has a scalable architecture, but there is room for improvement in terms of expanding its capabilities and solutions.

I have had several issues that required contacting the support team. I have had a positive experience with the support team, except when dealing with telecommunications-related issues. The support for customer integrations is decent. I would rate the support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of IBM Resilient is somewhat difficult, particularly in complex environments, as it involves multiple components. It took one day to deploy.

IBM Resilient is relatively affordable. It typically offers a yearly subscription, and I have a three-year license, which is cost-effective.

Overall, I would rate IBM Resilient a seven out of ten. My advice to people who are considering using it is that unless you specifically want to use IBM, there are better alternatives available.

IBM Resilient could integrate better with my tools. 

I have used IBM Resilient for about six months.

IBM Resilient is scalable. 

The company previously used Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR, but I didn't use it.  

I rate IBM Resilient eight out of 10. 

We are using this solution for research and to integrate it into security solutions on the platform.

It's really simple and has a flexible interface.

It has been helpful with incident response monitoring and has good security features.

The integration could be improved so that it is easy to integrate with other solutions.

We need better pricing. It is very expensive to facilitate the students for research purposes for one month.

I have been using IBM Resilient for a few months.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

This product is scalable.

We have not contacted technical support.

We are using many other solutions for research purposes such as Red Connect, Rapid7, and Siemplify.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It's simple to install and doesn't take very long to deploy.

We researched the internet on how to install and use this solution. There is a lot of information available on the internet.

It is very expensive. 

I haven't purchased this solution yet, I downloaded the community version.

This is a very useful tool, and I recommend it.

I would rate IBM Resilient a six out of ten.

We basically use all of the basic functionality, including the entire MITRE ATT&CK tactics, et cetera.

The interlinking of the offenses is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us.

The UBA, User Behavior Analytics, is very good.

The solution has been stable so far. The performance is good.

The product can scale if you need it to. It's an easy process. 

In terms of the whole analysis aspect, if we can get any additional information and ensure it's contextual information, that would be quite helpful to us.

The initial setup is complex. 

I've been using the solution for four years or so. It's been a while. I have a few years of experience with the product at this point. 

The solution has been quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is quite good.

We have about 100 users on the solution right now. The solution is quite easy to scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease. 

The initial setup is not straightforward or simple. It's quite complex. It can be difficult. The whole deployment, as well as the configuration, takes some work.

The deployment itself took about two months in total. 

We handled everything in-house. We didn't enlist the help of any consultants or integrators. Our team handled every aspect themselves.

We have a business partnership with IBM.

I'm working with the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure which version number it is.

I'd recommend the product to other users and companies. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The solution is easy to use.

The tool needs to improve its documentation on license scripts.

I have been working with the solution for two months.

The solution is stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I would rate the product’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The tool’s support takes time to respond.

Positive

The tool’s setup is easy. I would rate the solution’s setup a seven out of ten. The deployment took six months to complete. Our deployment team consisted of three engineers.

I would rate the tool’s pricing a three out of ten. The tool’s pricing is on a yearly basis.

I would rate the tool a seven out of ten. We have medium-based customers for the solution. You need to take the beginner’s course from IBM and follow the documentation to start using the tool.

We have delivered a couple of Resilient solutions to our customers.

The product is primarily used for incident response automation and orchestration.

The solution is very easy to use.

It's a very stable product. The performance has been very good.

The product needs a bit more development.

We've had some compatibility issues that need to be resolved. There needs to be a bit more research done into that to figure out why it won't work. For example, my customer had some specific requirements, however, due to a lot of compatibility issues, some devices were not available to upgrade or add to the system. They say they are working on adding it to the solution, however, the compatibility still isn't available, and may not be for a while. They are unclear on the timelines.

We've had issues surrounding the deployment of the product.

The solution needs to try and develop more custom playbooks or documentation to help the customer with the initial setup.

Technical support is not pro-active enough and they take too long to provide solutions to problems.

The solution needs to have a physical deployment as well. It would be ideal if it wasn't just on the cloud.

We have been selling the solution for the past three years at this point.

There are some aspects of the solution that we can scale. There are certain things we can customize if we need to. We can also scale, for example, the number of actions per month. You can expand it if you need to.

Currently, we have six clients using the solution. These companies differ in size.

I personally have five team members in my organization who are supporting the customer in the support portal.

We use the IBM support portal. The need to be much more proactive in supporting the customer. They don't necessarily ever say "this is not possible". Instead, they say "we are developing a solution". However, the process of developing a fix takes far too long. They need to be more aggressive in dealing with issues. Right now, sometimes it can take up to two to three months to resolve an issue, which is far too long.

I wouldn't say that we are satisfied with the level of service they provide. 

We've had issues with the setup process. We have Palo Alto, and for some reason, there isn't good compatibility.

That said, for the most part, the installation is fairly straightforward. It's not too complex.

We have five team members capable of handling implementations.

We handle the implementation for our clients.

The pricing is pretty good, however, the downside is that it is not a very mature product.

When a company needs a playbook, they have to create one, and then they have to pay someone for that service. However, it might be something that IBM could develop and template for others. They may be in the process of doing this already.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

It's an okay product, however, it needs more maturity.

Each customer will have different use cases for this solution. We develop use cases based on customer requirements and our technical team builds a playbook for the customer. Resilient is deployed on-premises.

This is a good solution that we recommend for customers. 

This product could be improved with better customization. This product isn't the best on the market like QRadar, but it's actually a good solution. However, some competitors' solutions contain more integration, support, automation, or flexibility. 

I have been working with Resilient for over a year. 

This solution is stable. 

The technical support is good. 

The installation is straightforward, but customization requires an understanding of programming as well as CTI integration. For implementation, I had a team of two engineers.

I implemented through an in-house team. 

There is a license you need to pay for in order to use this product. 

I rate IBM Resilient a seven out of ten because the customization and integration could be improved. It needs more support metrics for integration and more flexibility in customizing the playbook. I recommend this product to others who are considering implementation. 

We use it to manage security services.

Its flexibility is the most valuable. 

Its price needs improvement.

I have been using IBM Resilient for five years.

We have contacted their technical support. I would rate them as average.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took us a month to deploy.

We have our own team.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. Its price and technical support need improvement.