Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
IBM Security QRadar Logo

Top 10 IBM Security QRadar Alternatives

Vendor: IBM
4.0 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
Leave a review

Top IBM Security QRadar Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to IBM Security QRadar based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, Wazuh, and Fortinet FortiEDR. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. IBM Security QRadar surpasses its competitors by offering robust threat detection and AI-driven insights that streamline security operations, enabling organizations to efficiently identify and respond to potential threats with precision and reliability.

IBM Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with IBM, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
IBM Security QRadar Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar is ideal for environments requiring compliance monitoring and scalability, benefiting from strong raw log extraction. In comparison, CrowdStrike Falcon efficiently detects threats with real-time AI analysis, appealing to companies focusing on proactive threat response.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive setup capabilities, while CrowdStrike Falcon emphasizes ease of initial deployment, highlighting installation differences essential for decision-making.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive setup capabilities, while CrowdStrike Falcon emphasizes ease of initial deployment, highlighting installation differences essential for decision-making.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Wazuh
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Wazuh
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers advanced analytics ideal for enterprises needing comprehensive security intelligence. In comparison, Wazuh provides a cost-effective, open-source solution suitable for smaller organizations, emphasizing ease of integration and essential functionalities for compliance monitoring and agent configuration.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Wazuh Report
IBM Security QRadar presents a higher setup cost, while Wazuh offers a more economical setup expense, highlighting a key financial difference.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar presents a higher setup cost, while Wazuh offers a more economical setup expense, highlighting a key financial difference.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiEDR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiEDR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers robust integration and real-time data correlation, appealing to enterprises with extensive security needs. In comparison, Fortinet FortiEDR's cost-effectiveness and seamless endpoint integration provide an attractive option for organizations requiring strong protection without high expenses.
Download Fortinet FortiEDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a significant setup cost, while Fortinet FortiEDR is more budget-friendly in terms of initial investment. QRadar offers comprehensive security features, contrasting with FortiEDR's cost-effective deployment focused on endpoint protection.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a significant setup cost, while Fortinet FortiEDR is more budget-friendly in terms of initial investment. QRadar offers comprehensive security features, contrasting with FortiEDR's cost-effective deployment focused on endpoint protection.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Dynatrace
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Dynatrace
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalability and robust out-of-the-box functionalities, ideal for comprehensive security needs. In comparison, Dynatrace provides deep application insights with its AI capabilities and PurePath technology, appealing to those prioritizing user experience and application performance.
Download Dynatrace vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar often involves higher setup costs due to complex infrastructure requirements, whereas Dynatrace typically offers a more straightforward and budget-friendly installation process.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar often involves higher setup costs due to complex infrastructure requirements, whereas Dynatrace typically offers a more straightforward and budget-friendly installation process.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Datadog
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Datadog
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in advanced threat detection and seamless data correlation, appealing to enterprises requiring robust security. In comparison, Datadog provides flexible monitoring with cloud-friendly integrations, attracting businesses seeking real-time insights and adaptable pricing for diverse technology environments.
Download Datadog vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically has higher setup costs compared to Datadog, which is known for more flexible and lower initial investment options.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically has higher setup costs compared to Datadog, which is known for more flexible and lower initial investment options.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Microsoft Sentinel
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Microsoft Sentinel
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in consolidating log data for comprehensive insights and scalability, valuable for varied deployments. In comparison, Microsoft Sentinel offers seamless cloud-native integration and AI-driven analysis within the Microsoft ecosystem, attracting tech buyers needing advanced analytics and cloud flexibility.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Microsoft Sentinel Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Sentinel, which offers a more cost-effective initial setup. The pricing difference highlights contrasting budget considerations for organizations evaluating these security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Sentinel, which offers a more cost-effective initial setup. The pricing difference highlights contrasting budget considerations for organizations evaluating these security solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk Enterprise Security
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in vulnerability management, threat detection, and integration. In comparison, Splunk Enterprise Security offers strong log management and community support. A tech buyer might choose QRadar for affordability and customization, while Splunk provides extensive analytics and flexibility across deployment environments.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk Enterprise Security Report
IBM Security QRadar typically has a lower setup cost, whereas Splunk Enterprise Security's setup cost is higher, highlighting a key difference in initial expenses for businesses considering these security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically has a lower setup cost, whereas Splunk Enterprise Security's setup cost is higher, highlighting a key difference in initial expenses for businesses considering these security solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Darktrace
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Darktrace
4.1 out of 5
IBM QRadar excels in comprehensive security intelligence and traditional SIEM functionalities, appealing to large enterprises with robust log management and scalability. In comparison, Darktrace leverages AI for real-time network visibility and anomaly detection, offering autonomous responses for innovative threat management.
Download Darktrace vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Darktrace, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment, emphasizing a significant difference in their financial entry barriers.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Darktrace, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment, emphasizing a significant difference in their financial entry barriers.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
SentinelOne Singularity Complete
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive features like scalability and Watson integration for threat intelligence, making it ideal for compliance monitoring. In comparison, SentinelOne Singularity Complete excels with AI-driven security and seamless integrations, appealing to those prioritizing automated threat management and cost-effective solutions.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. SentinelOne Singularity Complete Report
IBM Security QRadar offers a cost-effective setup with comprehensive features, while SentinelOne Singularity Complete requires a higher initial investment, highlighting a key difference in setup cost between these two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar offers a cost-effective setup with comprehensive features, while SentinelOne Singularity Complete requires a higher initial investment, highlighting a key difference in setup cost between these two solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Microsoft Defender XDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in integration and scalability with a focus on user behavior analytics. In comparison, Microsoft Defender XDR offers seamless integration with Microsoft technologies and advanced threat protection for environments reliant on Microsoft, though improvements are needed in pricing and third-party integrations.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Microsoft Defender XDR Report
IBM Security QRadar has a complex setup process with higher costs, while Microsoft Defender XDR offers a simpler, more cost-effective setup. QRadar may demand more resources, whereas Microsoft Defender focuses on streamlined implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a complex setup process with higher costs, while Microsoft Defender XDR offers a simpler, more cost-effective setup. QRadar may demand more resources, whereas Microsoft Defender focuses on streamlined implementation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers extensive security monitoring with exceptional scalability and integration options for large enterprises. In comparison, Cortex XDR emphasizes advanced threat protection with a cloud-centric approach and seamless endpoint integration, appealing to organizations seeking intuitive interfaces and predictive analytics.
Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar's setup cost is generally higher compared to Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, which offers a more cost-effective initial implementation. IBM's comprehensive feature set justifies its premium price, while Cortex XDR focuses on affordability.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar's setup cost is generally higher compared to Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, which offers a more cost-effective initial implementation. IBM's comprehensive feature set justifies its premium price, while Cortex XDR focuses on affordability.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Elastic Security
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Elastic Security
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management, scalability, and integration. In comparison, Elastic Security offers an open-source model with flexible deployment and cost-effectiveness. IBM suits large enterprises seeking robust capabilities, while Elastic attracts budget-conscious businesses needing adaptable deployment options.
Download Elastic Security vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher setup costs, reflecting its robust capabilities, while Elastic Security often presents a more affordable entry point, focusing on flexibility and scalability.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher setup costs, reflecting its robust capabilities, while Elastic Security often presents a more affordable entry point, focusing on flexibility and scalability.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in real-time data correlation and offers robust user behavior analytics. In comparison, Trellix Endpoint Security provides strong threat protection with customization capabilities. QRadar needs better device integration, while Trellix requires improved resource management and authentication tool integration.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Report
IBM Security QRadar has higher initial setup costs, offering robust features tailored for enterprise security, while Trellix Endpoint Security Platform presents a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to organizations prioritizing cost-effectiveness with reliable endpoint protection.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has higher initial setup costs, offering robust features tailored for enterprise security, while Trellix Endpoint Security Platform presents a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to organizations prioritizing cost-effectiveness with reliable endpoint protection.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Grafana Loki
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Grafana Loki
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in comprehensive security monitoring with features like data correlation and compliance reporting. In comparison, Grafana Loki offers simplicity and cost-effectiveness, ideal for microservice log processing, appealing to tech buyers prioritizing affordability and ease of use.
Download Grafana Loki vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Grafana Loki offers a more cost-effective setup, highlighting a significant pricing difference.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Grafana Loki offers a more cost-effective setup, highlighting a significant pricing difference.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Tanium
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Tanium
3.8 out of 5
IBM QRadar excels with robust log management and integration capabilities, making it ideal for larger enterprises. In comparison, Tanium offers strong threat protection and real-time patching, appealing to those prioritizing instant discovery and detailed process views.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Tanium Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Tanium, which provides a more economical initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Tanium, which provides a more economical initial investment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Graylog
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Graylog
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive features for data correlation and ease of integration, appealing to enterprises with complex environments. In comparison, Graylog's open-source nature and budget-conscious options attract smaller organizations seeking straightforward log management and alerting capabilities.
Download Graylog vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant initial investment, while Graylog offers a more budget-friendly setup cost, highlighting a clear distinction in affordability between the two security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant initial investment, while Graylog offers a more budget-friendly setup cost, highlighting a clear distinction in affordability between the two security solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Security Onion
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Security Onion
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers advanced threat detection with seamless integration, ideal for large enterprises seeking comprehensive security. In comparison, Security Onion's open-source approach provides cost-effective flexibility, appealing to organizations prioritizing customization and technical control over budget and resources.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Security Onion Report
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs while offering robust enterprise features, whereas Security Onion provides a more cost-effective setup, appealing to budget-conscious users with its core functionalities.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs while offering robust enterprise features, whereas Security Onion provides a more cost-effective setup, appealing to budget-conscious users with its core functionalities.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Huntress Managed EDR
4.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management, advanced threat intelligence, and scalability, catering to larger enterprises with detailed compliance needs. In comparison, Huntress Managed EDR provides ease of use and automatic threat remediation, suiting SMBs with its flexible pricing and user-friendly deployment.
Download Huntress Managed EDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a significant setup cost, while Huntress Managed EDR offers a more cost-effective setup solution.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a significant setup cost, while Huntress Managed EDR offers a more cost-effective setup solution.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AWS Security Hub
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AWS Security Hub
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in comprehensive capabilities, including log management and scalability, appealing to large enterprises seeking in-depth security insights. In comparison, AWS Security Hub offers seamless AWS integration and cost-effective flexibility, suitable for cloud-centric organizations requiring efficient, centralized security views.
Download AWS Security Hub vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has an upfront setup cost while AWS Security Hub simplifies initial setup with its pay-as-you-go pricing.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has an upfront setup cost while AWS Security Hub simplifies initial setup with its pay-as-you-go pricing.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar provides extensive log management, ideal for versatile deployment environments. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR excels in automation with its intuitive playbook interface, streamlining incident management, making it a suitable choice for organizations prioritizing orchestration and integration capabilities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a moderate setup cost, while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR tends to have a lower initial cost, making QRadar potentially more expensive for upfront investment compared to Cortex XSOAR.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a moderate setup cost, while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR tends to have a lower initial cost, making QRadar potentially more expensive for upfront investment compared to Cortex XSOAR.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Trend Vision One
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Trend Vision One
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar, with advanced scalability and built-in features, appeals to larger enterprises. In comparison, Trend Vision One emphasizes cloud efficiency and integration, attracting businesses seeking flexible, centralized management. QRadar's robust enterprise capabilities contrast with Trend Vision One's adaptable cloud-based solutions.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Trend Vision One Report
IBM Security QRadar's setup costs can be more substantial compared to Trend Vision One, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment requirements. This pricing aspect may influence organizations with budget considerations when selecting their preferred security solution.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar's setup costs can be more substantial compared to Trend Vision One, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment requirements. This pricing aspect may influence organizations with budget considerations when selecting their preferred security solution.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Intercept X Endpoint
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels with robust compliance monitoring, scalability, and Watson-enhanced threat detection. In comparison, Intercept X Endpoint offers advanced machine learning and anti-ransomware features, appealing to those requiring synchronized security across devices with a focus on cloud deployments.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Intercept X Endpoint Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Intercept X Endpoint is more budget-friendly. QRadar users appreciate its comprehensive features despite the price, whereas Intercept X users value its affordability and efficient deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Intercept X Endpoint is more budget-friendly. QRadar users appreciate its comprehensive features despite the price, whereas Intercept X users value its affordability and efficient deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Vectra AI
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Vectra AI
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers AI-driven threat detection and real-time alerting, suited for various enterprise sizes. In comparison, Vectra AI specializes in network threat detection focusing on attack lifecycle visibility. IBM excels in integration, while Vectra provides effective network-related insights and triage capabilities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Vectra AI Report
IBM Security QRadar has straightforward setup costs, whereas Vectra AI requires a more complex cost assessment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has straightforward setup costs, whereas Vectra AI requires a more complex cost assessment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar is renowned for its comprehensive security monitoring capabilities, making it an ideal choice for large-scale deployments. In comparison, CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR excels in providing advanced endpoint protection with real-time threat detection, appealing to those prioritizing efficient threat management.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs compared to CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR, indicating QRadar's advanced integration needs while Falcon provides a more budget-friendly setup for streamlined deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs compared to CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR, indicating QRadar's advanced integration needs while Falcon provides a more budget-friendly setup for streamlined deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cortex XSIAM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cortex XSIAM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalability and easy integration, ideal for real-time alerting and data correlation. In comparison, Cortex XSIAM excels in threat detection with machine learning, providing flexibility and simplicity, beneficial for seamless deployment and forensic automation.
Download Cortex XSIAM vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar often has higher setup costs due to its extensive features, while Cortex XSIAM typically offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to cost-conscious businesses.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar often has higher setup costs due to its extensive features, while Cortex XSIAM typically offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to cost-conscious businesses.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
LogRhythm SIEM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
LogRhythm SIEM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalability and ease of management, appealing to organizations seeking intuitive threat protection. In comparison, LogRhythm's AI-driven analytics and compliance support attract those needing a modular approach and intelligence-driven insights. QRadar and LogRhythm address different organizational needs with distinct strengths.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. LogRhythm SIEM Report
IBM Security QRadar generally incurs a higher setup cost compared to LogRhythm SIEM, which is noted for its more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar generally incurs a higher setup cost compared to LogRhythm SIEM, which is noted for its more budget-friendly initial investment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Rapid7 InsightIDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Rapid7 InsightIDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in comprehensive features such as log management and vulnerability scanning, suitable for enterprises needing scalable and user-friendly solutions. In comparison, Rapid7 InsightIDR focuses on user behavior analytics and integrated threat intelligence, appealing to those prioritizing seamless cloud-based experiences and cost-effective flexibility.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Rapid7 InsightIDR Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Rapid7 InsightIDR, which offers a more cost-effective initial deployment. These differences underline distinct cost structures in implementing these cybersecurity solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Rapid7 InsightIDR, which offers a more cost-effective initial deployment. These differences underline distinct cost structures in implementing these cybersecurity solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cynet
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cynet
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalable monitoring features, enabling effective threat detection. In comparison, Cynet focuses on network visibility with autonomous management. IBM's complex deployment may require professional help, while Cynet excels in ease of deployment with competitive pricing and extensive integration.
Download Cynet vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar involves significant initial setup costs, while Cynet offers a more streamlined and cost-effective setup process. The stark difference in setup costs highlights varying approaches in deployment and budget considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves significant initial setup costs, while Cynet offers a more streamlined and cost-effective setup process. The stark difference in setup costs highlights varying approaches in deployment and budget considerations.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Bitdefender GravityZone EDR
4.2 out of 5
Bitdefender GravityZone EDR appeals with comprehensive endpoint protection and cost-effectiveness for small to medium businesses. In comparison, IBM Security QRadar suits larger enterprises with data aggregation and advanced SIEM capabilities, despite its complexity and higher cost.
Download Bitdefender GravityZone EDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, making it a pricier initial investment, while Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers a more affordable setup, highlighting a key cost difference between these two cybersecurity solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, making it a pricier initial investment, while Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers a more affordable setup, highlighting a key cost difference between these two cybersecurity solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response
4.6 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers extensive customization and integration for complex IT environments, appealing to enterprises seeking comprehensive threat detection. In comparison, Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response emphasizes ease of use and customer service, ideal for businesses lacking in-house security expertise.
Download Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response, which offers a more cost-effective initial setup. QRadar’s pricing structure contrasts with Arctic Wolf’s streamlined approach.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response, which offers a more cost-effective initial setup. QRadar’s pricing structure contrasts with Arctic Wolf’s streamlined approach.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiSIEM
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiSIEM
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in advanced log management and offers extensive integrations, ideal for enterprises. In comparison, Fortinet FortiSIEM integrates SOC and NOC capabilities, appealing with its cost-effective model for smaller businesses needing affordable, comprehensive network monitoring.
Download Fortinet FortiSIEM vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant initial investment, while Fortinet FortiSIEM offers a more cost-effective setup. QRadar's higher setup cost might be justified by its extensive features compared to FortiSIEM's more budget-friendly alternative.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant initial investment, while Fortinet FortiSIEM offers a more cost-effective setup. QRadar's higher setup cost might be justified by its extensive features compared to FortiSIEM's more budget-friendly alternative.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AlienVault OSSIM
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AlienVault OSSIM
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels with advanced threat detection and comprehensive rules, while AlienVault OSSIM offers an all-in-one package and open-source flexibility. In comparison, AlienVault benefits smaller organizations, whereas QRadar supports scalability suitable for larger enterprises.
Download AlienVault OSSIM vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to AlienVault OSSIM, which offers a more budget-friendly option despite potentially offering different features in return.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to AlienVault OSSIM, which offers a more budget-friendly option despite potentially offering different features in return.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
syslog-ng
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
syslog-ng
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in advanced threat detection and compliance reporting, making it ideal for comprehensive security operations. In comparison, syslog-ng is valued for efficient log collection and storage, appealing to organizations focused on robust log data management.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. syslog-ng Report
IBM Security QRadar's setup costs are notably higher, emphasizing comprehensive features, while syslog-ng offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to cost-conscious users. QRadar's pricing reflects its robust security capabilities, contrasting with syslog-ng's economical approach.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar's setup costs are notably higher, emphasizing comprehensive features, while syslog-ng offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to cost-conscious users. QRadar's pricing reflects its robust security capabilities, contrasting with syslog-ng's economical approach.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk SOAR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk SOAR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management and rule-based customizability, offering robust threat detection and scalability for larger enterprises. In comparison, Splunk SOAR provides automation with strong orchestration capabilities, making it suitable for managing workflows and integrating third-party tools efficiently.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk SOAR Report
IBM Security QRadar offers more affordable setup costs compared to Splunk SOAR, which tends to be higher. This cost difference highlights a key factor for businesses considering initial implementation expenses between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar offers more affordable setup costs compared to Splunk SOAR, which tends to be higher. This cost difference highlights a key factor for businesses considering initial implementation expenses between the two solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiAnalyzer
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in real-time alerting and offers strong compliance monitoring, ideal for high-end security needs. In comparison, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is noted for ease of deployment and integration within Fortinet’s ecosystem, suitable for businesses seeking user-friendly solutions.
Download Fortinet FortiAnalyzer vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a lower setup cost compared to Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, highlighting a cost-effective installation process. In contrast, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer's setup expense is higher, which may imply a more complex or feature-rich setup.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a lower setup cost compared to Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, highlighting a cost-effective installation process. In contrast, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer's setup expense is higher, which may imply a more complex or feature-rich setup.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Google Chronicle Suite
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers in-depth threat detection and customizable dashboards. In comparison, Google Chronicle Suite provides advanced analytics with a cloud-native architecture. While QRadar involves on-premises deployment, Chronicle's cloud-based model ensures easier integration. QRadar's initial investment contrasts with Chronicle's cost-effective pricing.
Download Google Chronicle Suite vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher setup costs compared to Google Chronicle Suite, which offers more competitive pricing for initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher setup costs compared to Google Chronicle Suite, which offers more competitive pricing for initial implementation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalability and advanced threat detection with extensive log integration capabilities. In comparison, Cybereason offers detailed threat visibility and intuitive threat hunting, appealing to those seeking rapid response with cost-effective pricing and strong endpoint protection.
Download Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response, which offers a more cost-effective initial setup, highlighting a significant difference in the financial consideration between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response, which offers a more cost-effective initial setup, highlighting a significant difference in the financial consideration between the two solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sophos MDR
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sophos MDR
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in data integration and complex threat detection, making it ideal for large enterprises. In comparison, Sophos MDR offers strong endpoint protection with easy management. Customers may choose QRadar for detailed correlation or Sophos for rapid response and unified security.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Sophos MDR Report
IBM Security QRadar's setup cost is significant, whereas Sophos MDR offers a more budget-friendly installation expense.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar's setup cost is significant, whereas Sophos MDR offers a more budget-friendly installation expense.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Securonix Next-Gen SIEM
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalability and comprehensive monitoring, appealing to enterprises needing rapid security insights. In comparison, Securonix Next-Gen SIEM focuses on behavior analytics and affordability, benefiting those seeking cost-effective solutions with strong cloud integration.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Securonix Next-Gen SIEM Report
IBM Security QRadar has a lower setup cost compared to Securonix Next-Gen SIEM, highlighting a significant price advantage for budget-conscious implementations. Securonix, while potentially offering more diverse features, requires a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a lower setup cost compared to Securonix Next-Gen SIEM, highlighting a significant price advantage for budget-conscious implementations. Securonix, while potentially offering more diverse features, requires a higher initial investment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Amazon OpenSearch Service
3.6 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar simplifies data extraction and seamless integration. In comparison, Amazon OpenSearch Service provides flexible scale handling and effective performance monitoring. QRadar's integration capabilities attract buyers, while OpenSearch's resource management appeals to those needing cloud-based solutions.
Download Amazon OpenSearch Service vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar requires a higher setup investment, while Amazon OpenSearch Service offers a lower-cost initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar requires a higher setup investment, while Amazon OpenSearch Service offers a lower-cost initial setup.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk User Behavior Analytics
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in flexibility with deployment options, extensive features, and scalability, appealing to large enterprises needing comprehensive solutions. In comparison, Splunk User Behavior Analytics offers advanced analytics and customizable dashboards, suitable for enterprises focusing on real-time updates and detailed data correlation.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk User Behavior Analytics Report
IBM Security QRadar involves higher setup costs, while Splunk User Behavior Analytics offers a more accessible initial pricing, highlighting a clear cost distinction between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves higher setup costs, while Splunk User Behavior Analytics offers a more accessible initial pricing, highlighting a clear cost distinction between the two solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sentinel
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sentinel
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar is notable for advanced log management and customizable dashboards, ideal for scaling on-premises. In comparison, Microsoft Sentinel excels in cloud integration, offering strong threat detection and flexibility for Microsoft-focused environments. QRadar's cost targets larger enterprises; Sentinel suits cloud-native strategies.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Sentinel Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Sentinel, although Sentinel offers a more flexible pricing structure.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Sentinel, although Sentinel offers a more flexible pricing structure.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Exabeam
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Exabeam
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers extensive features, including raw log extraction and Watson integration for enhanced data analysis. In comparison, Exabeam excels in behavior analytics and machine learning, optimizing user behavior tracking and seamless infrastructure integration for a tailored security management approach.
Download Exabeam vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has higher initial setup costs, while Exabeam offers a more budget-friendly solution for initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has higher initial setup costs, while Exabeam offers a more budget-friendly solution for initial implementation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers advanced integration capabilities and analytics, ideal for large enterprises with complex security needs. In comparison, SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server is cost-effective and user-friendly, appealing to smaller organizations or those needing straightforward log management.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server Report
IBM Security QRadar involves higher setup costs compared to SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server, which is more budget-friendly for initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves higher setup costs compared to SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server, which is more budget-friendly for initial deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
ManageEngine Log360
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalability and integration, appealing to large enterprises prioritizing comprehensive security. In comparison, ManageEngine Log360 offers affordability and flexibility, suitable for organizations seeking real-time management and application monitoring with effective cost control.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. ManageEngine Log360 Report
IBM Security QRadar has higher setup costs but offers comprehensive features, while ManageEngine Log360 provides a more budget-friendly option with easier initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has higher setup costs but offers comprehensive features, while ManageEngine Log360 provides a more budget-friendly option with easier initial setup.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels with versatile log extraction, comprehensive rules, and adaptable deployments. In comparison, Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR focuses on swift alerting, Microsoft 365 integration, and network threat actionability, making each solution appealing for different security needs.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR Report
IBM Security QRadar offers a scalable setup cost, making it ideal for larger infrastructures, while Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR/MDR provides a competitive setup fee designed for straightforward deployment in smaller to mid-sized organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar offers a scalable setup cost, making it ideal for larger infrastructures, while Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR/MDR provides a competitive setup fee designed for straightforward deployment in smaller to mid-sized organizations.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Coralogix
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Coralogix
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive features like scalable architecture and automated threat detection for large environments, with extensive customization. In comparison, Coralogix attracts users with its intuitive interface and efficient log analysis, offering seamless log-metric-trace correlation and flexible pricing for smaller businesses.
Download Coralogix vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Coralogix, which offers a more budget-friendly setup.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Coralogix, which offers a more budget-friendly setup.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Red Canary
4.5 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Red Canary
4.5 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in structured pricing and comprehensive support, ideal for larger organizations. In comparison, Red Canary focuses on AI-driven threat intelligence and automation, offering quicker cloud-based deployment, making it attractive for those seeking advanced features and rapid implementation.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Red Canary Report
IBM Security QRadar tends to have a higher setup cost compared to Red Canary, reflecting in contrasting initial investment expectations. Red Canary offers a relatively lower cost setup, giving it an edge in affordability.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar tends to have a higher setup cost compared to Red Canary, reflecting in contrasting initial investment expectations. Red Canary offers a relatively lower cost setup, giving it an edge in affordability.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
One Identity Safeguard
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar emphasizes security intelligence and scalability with robust log management. In comparison, One Identity Safeguard focuses on managing privileged access. QRadar is suitable for broad security needs, while Safeguard targets secure session auditing and access management, appealing to identity-focused environments.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. One Identity Safeguard Report
IBM Security QRadar has a straightforward setup cost, while One Identity Safeguard requires a more complex and potentially higher investment, highlighting a significant difference in initial financial commitment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a straightforward setup cost, while One Identity Safeguard requires a more complex and potentially higher investment, highlighting a significant difference in initial financial commitment between the two solutions.

Related categories

Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
Log Management
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)