IBM Security QRadar Reviews

We're a customer, partner, or reseller. We use QRadar on our own internal SOC. We are also a reseller of QRadar for some of the projects. So, we sell QRadar to customers, and we're also a partner because we have different models. We roll the product out to a customer as part of our service where we own it, but the customer is paying. We also do a full deployment that a customer owns. So, we are actually fulfilling all three roles.

The most valuable thing about QRadar is that you have a single window into your network, SIEM, network flows, and risk management of your assets. If you use Splunk, for instance, then you still need a full packet capture solution, whereas the full packet capture solution is integrated within QRadar. Its application ecosystem makes it very powerful in terms of doing analysis.

In terms of the GUI, they need to improve the consistency. It has been written by different teams at different times. So, when you go around the interface, you'll find a lot of inconsistencies in terms of the way it works.

I'd like them to improve the offense. When QRadar detects something, it creates what it calls offenses. So, it has a rudimentary ticketing system inside of it. This is the same interface that was there when I started using it 12 years ago. It just has not been improved. They do allow integration with IBM Resilient, but IBM Resilient is grotesquely expensive. The most effective integration that IBM offers today is with IBM Resilient, which is an instant response platform. It is a very good platform, but it is very expensive. They really should do something with the offense handling because it is very difficult to scale, and it has limitations. The maximum number of offenses that it can carry is 16K. After 16K, you have to flush your offenses out. So, it is all or nothing. You lose all your offenses up until that point in time, and you don't have any history within the offense list of older events. If you're dealing with multiple customers, this becomes problematic. That's why you need to use another product to do the actual ticketing. If you wanted the ticket existence, you would normally interface with ServiceNow, SolarWinds, or some other product like that. 

Their support should also be improved. Their support is very slow, and it is very difficult to find knowledgeable people within IBM.

Its price and licensing should be improved. It is overly expensive and overly complex in terms of licensing. 

I have been using this solution for 12 years.

Their support is very slow. it is very difficult to find knowledgeable people within IBM. I'm an expert in the use of QRadar, and I know the technical insights of QRadar very well, but it is sometimes very painful to deal with IBM's support and actually get them to do something. Their support is very difficult to work with for some customers.

I work with Prelude, which is by a French company. It is a basic beginner's SIEM. If you never had a SIEM before and you wanted to experiment, this is where you would start, but it is probably that you would leave very quickly. I've also worked with ArcSight and Splunk.

My recommendation would depend upon your technical appetite or your technical capability. QRadar is essentially a Linux-based Red Hat appliance. Unfortunately, you still need some Linux knowledge to work with this effectively. Not everything is through the GUI. 

Comparing it with Splunk, in terms of licensing, IBM's model is simpler than Splunk's model. Splunk has two models. One is volume metrics, so you pay for the number of bytes that are transmitted daily. The other one is based upon the number of events per second, which they introduced relatively recently. Splunk can be more expensive than QRadar when you start to get into adding what they call indexes. So, basically, you create specific indexes to hold, for instance, logs related to Cisco. This is implicit within QRadar, and it is designed that way, but within Splunk, if you want to get that performance and you have large volumes of logs, you need to create indexes. This is where the cost of Splunk can escalate.

Installing QRadar is very simple. You insert a DVD, boot the system, and it runs the installation after asking you a few questions. It runs pretty much automatically, and then you're up and going. From an installation point of view, it is very easy.

The only thing that you have to get right before you do the installation is your architecture because it has event collectors, event processes, flow collectors, flow processes, and a number of other components. You need to understand where they should be placed. If you want more storage, then you need to place data nodes on the ends of the processes. All this is something that you need to have in mind when you design and deploy.

It is overly expensive and overly complex in terms of licensing. They have many different appliances, which makes it extremely difficult to choose the technology. It is very difficult to choose the technology or QRadar components that you should be deploying. 

They have improved some of it in the last few years. They have made it slightly easy with the fact that you can now buy virtual versions of all the appliances, which is good, but it is still very fragmented. For instance, on some of the smaller appliances, there is no upgrade path. So, if you exceed the capacity of the appliance, you have to buy a bigger appliance, which is not helpful because it is quite a major cost. If you want to add more disks to the system, they'll say that you can't. If they ship a disk with 2 terabytes that the older appliances have, and you say to them that you can commercially get 10 terabyte disks, they will say this is not possible, even though there is no technical reason why it cannot be done. So, they're not very flexible from that point of view. For IBM, it is good because you basically have to buy new appliances, but from a customer's point of view, it is a very expensive investment.

Make sure that you have the buy-in from different teams in the company because you will need help from the network teams. You will potentially need help from IT. 

You need to have a strategy of how you onboard logs into SIEM. Do you take a risk-based approach or do you onboard everything? You should take the time to understand the architecture and the implications of design choices. For instance, QRadar Components communicate with each other using SSH tunnels. The normal practice in security is that if I put a device in a DMZ, then communication between the device on the normal network, which is a higher security zone, and the DMZ, which is a lower security zone, will be initiated from the high-security zone. You would not expect the device in the DMZ to initiate communication back into the normal network. In the case of QRadar, if you put your processes in the DMZ, then it has to communicate with the console, which means that you have to allow the processor to communicate. This has consequences. If you have remote sites or you plan to use cloud-based processes, collectors, etc, and have an internal console, the same communication channels have to exist. So, it requires some careful planning. That's the main thing.

I would rate QRadar an eight out of 10 as compared to other products.

We primarily use the solution for breach management. We use it for identifying rogue IPs and picking up anomalies in terms of the network traffic coming in. We've seen a year of use cases in terms of breach management and incident management. We find IBM QRadar quite relevant in terms of protecting against potential malicious traffic coming into your organization. 

Obviously, it is evolved, and where we're utilizing IBM QRadar is to do other analytical capabilities, which include identity and access management. We've got a unique way where we use the platform to generate a view of all your identities and access that is granted within your environment and so forth. We are able to map that using IBM QRadar, which is not a use case that is normally thought about, however, we found from an analytical point of view, this is what we can do because we get all the information we need here.

IBM QRadar is phenomenal as a SIEM SOC solution. In terms of its capability, in terms of its usability, in terms of the SOC solutions or SIEM solutions out there, we find QRadar the most user-friendly. 

It gives you the right coverage as the analytical platform that's coupled with Watson is phenomenal.

From a deployment perspective, we found it very, very good.

What we like about QRadar and the models that IBM has, is it can go from a small-to-medium enterprise to a larger organization, and it gives you the same value.

It's easy to use if you go through the proper training. We find that the current IBM team in South Africa is not as good as the teams abroad, however, if you get the right support and the right training, which we have got, we find it very, very, very customizable and user-friendly. 

What we have done is we do not use a lot of level-one analysts. We use a lot of developers, so we constantly evolve the rule-set. Most of the organizations that have employed QRadar, what they do is they stack it up with level-one and level-two analysts, as opposed to having more security developers who enhance the rule-set, due to the fact that all of the same technologies work on rule-sets. If you can dynamically change the rule-set on the fly, you're good. We have got a different model in terms of the way we operate a SOC, where we have more developers amending the rules, you will lessen the number of false positives that you encounter. The biggest problem with most of the SIEM technologies out there is that you get too many false positives, and again, it impacts your operational SOC. We don't have that issue here. 

The only challenge with products like IBM is the EPS. You just have to be really on the events per second, as that's where the cost factor becomes a huge issue.

You do need proper training. Better training leads to better implementation. South Africa does not have the most knowledgeable technical support team. One challenge that you have in South Africa is the quality of the IBM resources. They're not up to the level companies need. I have to criticize IBM on that point - the skill level in South Africa and the South African franchise of IBM doesn't necessarily meet the quality of the product.

They can improve on the architecture. It's the way you deploy it. It's your enterprise architecture team that needs to understand it well. Again, due to our unique skillset on it, we deploy it in a very different way where we reduce the consumption of events per second, which reduces the overall cost of it. However, with the architecture, you need to get better guidance from IBM in terms of the way which the architecture is done. 

What I will say about IBM is that if you deploy it stock standard, it can be a very expensive tool, especially with your events per second, and where the way you deploy it architecturally will determine how much it costs you to manage it, as your events per second can be reduced through proper architecture. It's critical to an IBM install that a user understands the architecture and the deployment strategy. 

I've been dealing with the solution for a very long time. It's likely been about six years or so at this point. I've used it for a while.

We've got three customers on the solution currently. 

Technical support is lacking in South Africa and it doesn't meet the quality of the product. We're not quite satisfied with the level of service of knowledgeability on offer here. 

They need to be faster and more knowledgeable. If you log a ticket to South Africa, they can be quicker and more knowledgeable about issues. It's a problem within South Africa where the skill level of the IBM local team is not to the level it should be. Whether it's training or support, there's a problem. It's not the greatest.

The initial setup can be difficult if you don't have a good understanding of the product, for us, it's not too difficult. 

To do a small deployment takes us about two weeks.

When we did the deployment for one of our clients recently it took us four engineers from our side and four engineers from the outside to deploy it within two weeks. 

We handle deployments for our clients. Occasionally we need outside assistance. 

From a return on investment, the client sees in terms of its value from an IBM perspective, is a massive value from the deployment of QRadar.

On-premises is pretty expensive as opposed to the cloud. 

You do need to pay for a year subscription. You are charged at events per second as well. 

On QRadar, we look at the cloud-based uses as opposed to on-premise due to the cost factor. 

In terms of SIEM technologies, in terms of what you can get, I would rate it an eight out of ten. The QRadar platform is phenomenal in terms of what it does.

If you want to get the best out of IBM, spend more time on the rules generation and the modification of the rules.

The solution is primarily used for threat detection and response. QRadar can be integrated with other services from IBM such as Watson, among others. The main need is for threat detection, incident response, and dealing with threats or hunting threats. 

What else? I mean, it's always you're looking for threats. Usually, whoever buys this SIM solution or buys QRadar, for example, is looking for hidden threats and they get the logs to see what's happening within their system. They want a solution that looks very deep inside in order to correlate those logs and see if there's any information that they can get out of those logs or even live packets that are spanning through their networks. Therefore, it's usually threat hunting. That's the main thing, Others might use it to understand the system, and how it's performing overall.  However, that's the lesser use case.

Inside IBM QRadar there are a lot of engines that actually work to help us to do the correlation and normalization as well for the logs that we're receiving from multiple devices. IBM is very powerful in that regard. 

QRadar, as a solution, can integrate with a lot of other applications. You can write your own custom rules if you want to. We can ask it to detect whatever we want it to, even with the devices that are not supported to send logs. IBM QRadar can understand these types of commands and we can still integrate and write our own rules to help us to detect those logs that are coming from, for example, IoT devices or from other devices that usually we don't understand.

It can handle really a huge number of logs with fewer false positives. We can use the artificial intelligence and the rules that IBM is providing to make it really smart. The solution can help you predict even the false positives when we are alerting the admin or the security admin about some offenses that we have seen from the logs.

Their product is very user-friendly.

Customer service is very good and very helpful.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

The solution can scale.

The solution is very stable.

As per Gartner, maybe the price makes it so that the customers are not going for IBM QRadar. It's a little bit pricey compared to other solutions in the market. More or less that's the area that needs to be improved. That's usually the main concern that we receive from the customers - that it's a little bit pricey. That's the only thing I can say.

The custom rules could be simplified more or it should be possible to use a different language, other than the ones that the solution is already using. They should add other languages into the mix. You need some advanced customers in order to use the custom rules or to use their rules in order to configure the IBM QRadar in a proper way. Usually, they find it very difficult, especially if they don't have the experience.

Sometimes it works and catches whatever we want, however, sometimes it doesn't work. That's in rare cases, however, that's one thing that they need to maybe enhance.

I've been working with the solution for three years or so.

For stability, I'm not a customer who's using it on daily basis, however, from feedback that I'm getting from the customers who are attending to the solution, I've heard that this solution is stable. That's why it's in the leader area in Gartner. If you compare it to others in Gartner, it shows how their product is actually efficient. Whether I get QRadar, whether it's Splunk, whether it's LogRhythm, all of those products as a SIM are very good at that point. They're all quite reliable.

The scalability is very good. The product is scalable. A company shouldn't have trouble expanding it if they need to.

We typically work with banks and bigger organizations.

Technical support has been very good. They are helpful and responsive.

I've also learned a lot from the documentation, especially the online documentation. Due to the fact that I'm an official instructor for IBM, I have my other resources too, on the Learning Center from IBM. Documentation is not a problem. It's very helpful.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complex. It's quite easy.

The deployment takes time, definitely. You've got to prepare for your solution so that it's going to work in spanning all the other devices too. That doesn't mean it's a complex process, it just means it takes a bit.

IBM QRadar is pricey, and therefore, usually small enterprises are not able to afford it. Usually, probably most of the customers are usually large enterprises.

I'm actually teaching IBM and some services such as IBM QRadar, as part of my work. I'm familiar with Splunk, however, I'm not working with it on a daily basis. I'm teaching that technology to others. I'm not a customer. I'm using it for teaching purposes. I'm working in a training center. I'm not dealing with it on a daily basis, however, I understand how the product works. We do sometimes help integrate it and work as consultants occasionally as well.

While 7.4 is out, we're currently working with version 7.3.

Overall, I would rate the product at an eight out of ten. There's more to be done on it, however, we are mostly pleased with its capabilities.

There is a Pulse dashboard that they have. From a reporting perspective, we'll be creating dashboards based on the pulse functionalities. 

There are other third-party plugins that we can use as well. We can initiate in the QRadar platform, however, Pulse is one of the most user-friendly options. 

Along with that, there are out the box rules and out the box dashboards that we have available to us. Mostly what we are concentrating on is creating the rules and fine-tuning the rules to align properly with the customer infrastructure depending upon the customer's requirements. Pulse, UEBA, and NBAD are the features that are the best. They are the most useful from a SOC manager perspective.

The AQL queries could be better. With the queries, there's an option for you to create dashboards based on the queries that they have. The documentation that is available for AQL queries is not well received. They could maybe look at how Microsoft is leveraging AQLs from a Sentinel perspective and create more documentation and training materials and make those more available to the general public.

They have to facilitate more learning opportunities. Microsoft has something called Playground where you have some sample logs and where you can learn how to work on all this stuff, however, there is nothing like that for IBM. They really could make it more generalized and accessible to the general analyst population.

Technical support should be improved.

In terms of QRadar, I've used it for close to two years. I worked for a customer that is a managed security service provider. What we do is we will provide SOC as a service and QRadar. IBM is one of the partners that we have. Depending upon the customer considerations and customer preferences, we will either engage QRadar or Sentinel according to the customer preferences. Splunk and LogRhythm we also use on an as-needed basis. 

What they have claimed is 99.5% uptime. However, I'm not very sure whether there's an implementation problem or not. Sometimes the system gets hung and then we have to restart everything from the scratch. You have got these multi printing options, though not functionally. Sometimes it gets some jitters there. Sometimes there are cases where we are finding it very difficult to get into the system as there can be three or four people logging into the same platform at the same time and sometimes the reduces the speed a lot.

From an architect implementation perspective, the role that I have played is very limited. I'm not very sure about scaling. I'm not in a position to comment on that part. That said, once everything is implemented, I've noted that it's not as scalable as Sentinel or Splunk on the cloud, for sure. That is the same for LogRhythm and QRadar. Obviously, cloud-hosted applications will be more scalable and more resilient.

Technical support is something that has always been an issue for us. We have to raise a ticket and the products team will be available, however, depending upon the criticality, sometimes the support is not very easily accessible on weekends and on Friday evenings.

I've also worked with Sentinel, Splunk, QRadar, and LogRhythm. 

Compared to Sentinel, the initial setup is a bit complex. Depending upon whether you're going ahead with the cloud version or on-prem version, there is human involvement, however, normally everything is done by the platform engineer. I don't have to get my head into that part. Once everything is up and running, that is when we have to start working from our side. I'm sure it is more complex than a plug-and-play Sentinel, where connectors are easily available and just have to click, click and get things done.

The administration and maintenance would be two or three people depending upon the availability. I'm not very sure about troubleshooting. I'm coming at the solution from a user perspective. I'm more concerned with the rule fine-tuning and rule-building part. That kind of troubleshooting will be done with the platform team, which specializes in that. 

Licensing is mostly dependent on the EPS, events per second. Depending upon the number of products that are integrated with the platform, we have to come to an optimal EPS value. I'm not very sure about the financials, however, the licensing cost cannot be as much as that for Sentinel, which is not very low. For customers who need medium EPS values, we advise QRadar.

The basic out the box cost covers, the EPS value that you have specified, and then some archiving maybe. It should include at least six months of archiving and other functionalities. Most of the customers will go for the standard package and we don't have to go for extra archival or enhanced DPS. 10% to 15% of DPS can always be increased. It will not completely shut down the system, however, it'll start sending us notifications that the DPS is getting increased and then we can go for a higher licensing.

The version we use depends on when the customer is onboarded. Whenever recent onboarding takes place, we use the most up-to-date versions. However, there are customers that we have been facilitating for the past two or two and a half years and they might be using the previous versions. There are proper version upgrades that happen on a quarterly basis. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We analyze all our authentication traffic in QRadar UBA using the solution's AI module to detect and understand uncommon authentication patterns. There is also the rule logic, but we don't use that much. Instead, we mostly rely on AI to do that. In that respect, I wouldn't say we are using the product to the fullest extent because we only have the AI and what the CM is providing. We have a suite of security products, and QRadar UBA is only one source of information that we rely on.

QRadar UBA collects information on 16,000 employees in the company, including when they log in and out or when they launch applications. We have a team of 10 security analysts who go into the solution to check the alarms. IBM has set the solution up so that we only need to react to the alarms. The UBA will flag it if someone does something weird, and our security team will investigate the anomaly to see if that was valid or malicious. 

We are currently on QRoC — short for QRadar for Cloud — so it's the latest and greatest solution. It was originally on a private cloud, but we moved to the public cloud three years ago.

It's hard for me to pinpoint any one feature that's most valuable because it is all about consuming logs and analyzing them. We started using QRadar UBA because we needed something that could analyze Linux authentication information. Other products take care of the Windows platform.

Better algorithms or AI would always be appreciated, but this product does what it's supposed to do. And maybe there is something behind the scenes that could be improved, but I don't know. 

UBA is a plugin for QRadar SIEM. If we're talking about the SIEM solution as a whole, there is a lot I can talk about, but there isn't much to say about UBA as a standalone. I'm not in a position to criticize or comment on the underlying code.

I have been using QRadar UBA for six years.

I haven't had any problems. We have never needed to add more memory or CPU. 

IBM technical support is excellent. 10 out of 10. IBM is highly professional when it comes to security support. IBM's support for other types of solutions isn't quite as good, but the security domain is a different world. I've worked with IBM in other areas, and it's different. Security support is on a tier by itself inside IBM. 

Positive

We are also using a Microsoft solution called Azure Advanced Threat Protection. It provides similar UBA features but only for a Microsoft environment.  Most UBA products do exactly the same thing. I haven't tried many other solutions besides QRadar, Microsoft, and Splunk.

Splunk is brilliant. It does the same thing, but it's slightly more expensive, so we selected IBM. Microsoft's solution is a little cheaper, but it lacks Linux support currently. There are minor differences, but we went with IBM in this case because it has the best support.

IBM did the setup. I called them to ask for UBA, and it was available the next day. They handled all the deployment and maintenance. 

I have not calculated ROI for this product. QRadar UBA is a tiny part of the entire security portfolio. In the context of the SIEM as a whole, the cost is so low that it's hard to defend not doing it.

I have no idea what QRadar UBA costs as a standalone solution because it is bundled with the QRoC security operation center and several other modules that we pay for in a big lump sum. However, I don't think that part is too expensive. It's a plugin to the QRadar SIEM that feeds off the same data. We have X-Force Threat Exchange, so IBM is operating the SIEM for us. I say to them, "I want UBA," and there it is.

I rate QRadar UBA eight out of 10. It's a small product doing exactly what it's supposed to do as an integrated part of our SIEM. It looks good and works well. I don't give it a 10 because it is something we have to request. I would love it if UBA was included out of the box like Microsoft.

Regardless of which solution you use, I recommend user behavior analytics. It provides valuable information to the security team. It doesn't matter whether you use Splunk or Microsoft— you should use a UBA solution. 

We will probably stick with QRadar for the foreseeable future. It depends on the developments in the SIEM market. We will probably continue with IBM because changing SIEM is not something you do lightly. As long as we keep the IBM SIEM, we will continue to use QRadar UBA.

We use IBM QRadar to monitor security logs across the network.

One very useful feature is the plug-in offering that allows you to integrate it with other solutions, such as integrating it with plug-ins like ForeScout, Carbon Black, and the rest. Additionally, the ability of the agents to filter using XPath query to filter out the specific events you want to pick from, especially Windows log sources, is also very useful. That goes a long way in managing the EPS of the solution.

There are two ways you can pull logs: one way is where you can receive logs or send logs using the agents and previous transformation and the other way is where QRadar logs onto the servers using the admin account and then pulls the logs itself. The functionality that I would love to see with that remote pulling is to have the ability to also select what logs its pulling because when you use MSRPC now to receive loads from your log surface, it basically pulls all the events from that server. So even the noisy events that would overshoot your EPS, would also be pulled. So for particularly active or high servers that generate a whole lot of security events, let's say like your SFTP server that has a lot of devices on your network connecting to it, if you try to pull the logs remotely it would overshoot your EPS really quickly.

So if they could improve the functionality of the remote pull to also be able to select the logs that it is pulling from the log sources, that would be very, very effective. The reason for the pull is because the agents are not tamper-proof and any administrator can help shut down the service and uninstall the application and a whole lot of other things. Basically, your listening agent is at the mercy of the administrators, and for a security device or security software, that is a big vulnerability, because anybody can then go into the server, stop the agent, and then run any command or make any change they want to do, which would make your monitoring null and void. It would be good if the agent itself could be tamper-proof. And back to the first point, the reason why I prefer the remote pull is if there's no agent on the server and it's the console logging onto the server, your monitoring is much more secure. Regardless of what changes are being made on the server or what's going on the server, if the server is shut down and then a newer version is brought up with the same hostname and IP address, you would not need to go back in and re-install the agent. The console would just automatically connect back to that server once the IP address and the host are back up.

Additionally, I would like the rule creation interface to be much more user-friendly in the next release.

I have been using IBM QRadar every day for the last 12 months.

In terms of stability, it is very stable. In the almost two years in the environment, there has been only one issue. It was a disc failure and that was replaced within a week by the OEM.

Scalability might be an issue, but maybe it's because in our environment we do not use the application host. Since we use on-premise appliances we did notice that performance degraded a little when we added some plugins. So the recommendation was that we should have a separate application server that would host the application and then interface with the plugins and interface with the management console. But we do not have that within our environment so I can't speak to whether that would improve performance.

IBM tech support has been responsive.

I believe the initial setup was straightforward but I was not here for the setup, although I did not get any complaints.

The license is a yearly one.

I would recommend IBM QRadar. The user interface is really great and it simplifies the task of monitoring your environment.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give IBM QRadar an eight.

The UBA component is something that is there. However, it's something that honestly hasn't been leveraged as much. It's probably not a UBA feature like the ones we’ve used in the past. In any case, the UBA feature is there. You can look at the users and look at any risky activity or use cases. I tend to look at it. However, it's not my main source in terms of leveraging it as a UBA.

I equate QRadar to a robust solution. You get all the live sources. If you have someone there fine-tuning the solution and creating rules for the team to ensure the fence is alert. It's a robust solution.

In the past, I've heard the term that it's like a Cadillac, a trusted Cadillac. It'll get you from point A to B. It does what integration is supposed to do.

It needs a little bit perhaps more fine-tuning on the SIM aspect of it. Out of the box, it's just not one of those things that I leverage as a single source of truth regarding the user behavior analytics aspect of it.

With QRadar, IBM has had ample time to innovate, make changes to the interface, and keep up with some of the competitors. Yet, IBM delays innovating QRadar, since, once people are tied into it, they stick to the SIM as that's what they're used to. Right now, you have many other players in the market, like Datadog, Sumo Logic, and Splunk. Splunk has a ton of connectors as well, which is making it more appealing for other people to look at other solutions, especially when they're trying to look at a cloud-native solution.

There should be more opportunity for community kind of distribution where, for example, if there was a zero-day threat targeting companies. I know that many other solutions now provide ease of use in terms of sharing rules and for identifying and tracking some of these zero-day vulnerabilities out there. Radar needs to do the same.

I’ve been using the solution for about four years or so.

The stability's great. The solution is robust. It's trusted. Depending on how you have it deployed if it's a standalone appliance or it's high availability paired so that you have redundancy, the solution is reliable.

Anywhere from 25 to 50 users are using it. The primary users are security operations. However, then you do have some folks on the infrastructure side that also leverage QRadar. It wasn't always the case. That said, once we provided access to the infrastructure team, they enjoy using QRadar for looking at logs, and troubleshooting. That would involve the networking team and the server team. They also leverage it as well.

Overall, the IBM team is responsive in regards to ticketing. Obviously, you have to create a ticket with IBM and they will get someone to get on a WebEx with you within a reasonable amount of time depending on the urgency.

They will help resolve issues and create cases. The support is there in terms of having any issues or QRadar is generating errors. Support will guide you and record the session and help remove any issues or obstacles that you have, so I definitely would rate them high on the support aspect of it.

I didn't set it up. Probably part of the engineering team set it up.

I do not know the exact cost. It's a bit tricky as some of it is tied into pre-contracts that we have. Some parts of the company do prepaid funds for certain solutions. It's different. It varies.

While I use QRadar, I'm in a managerial role, so I'm not living in it every single day as my team members are.

Every situation is different. I know a lot of organizations or a lot of C-suite executives all go to the same kind of conferences each year. Then they all come back singing the same song: "We all have to go to the Cloud."

I’d rate the solution six out of ten.

IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson is aligned with regards to what's happening in the public space in terms of the Phishing attacks that we are seeing prevalent in the market. In the campaigns that which hackers are trying to obtain information, the use cases are very practical. The solution offers quite a bit of protection.  

IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson could be more user-friendly. You need some skills and understanding of what you're looking at, especially if you're going to draw down specific information.

Massive improvement is required in reporting. IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson is not a tool that is known for its reporting capability. It's a highly operational tool that you use for monitoring, you can sit and you can watch your alerts, whether it's flows or EPS, and you set up your playbooks directly. It is not a reporting tool. It is the worst possible tool to ever expect any reporting. It's unfortunate it's not a great reporting tool.

In a future release, there could be a bit more intelligence in terms of predictive accuracy and overall predictions. I haven't been too close in the last two, three, or four months, but I certainly would expect that their technology would be simplified to provide predictive analytics as opposed to retrospective looking back and analyzing past historic data.

I have been using IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson for approximately 10 years.

IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson is a stable solution.

IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson is best suited for large enterprises.

The support from IBM is not great at all. They can offer much better aftermarket support. They don't respond in a timely manner and it's such a challenge to have IBM respond. You have to follow their due diligence process when logging a call on their portal, you need access to their portal, and you have to provide detailed logs, et cetera. If their problem is always about integration, they have to get to the vendors. They can always enhance their support.

I would rate the support from IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson a two out of five.

They do respond but it depends on many factors, such as urgency. When we had an issue with Microsoft integration it took us six weeks to have a solution to the problem.

IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson's initial setup is not straightforward. You have to set up your network infrastructure, IP range, and firewalls, and make sure everything is secure. There's nothing easy about that.

You need application and hardware leads, firewall administrators, network engineers, and server administrators to complete the implementation.

My advice to others is to shop around because IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson is not for small enterprises, it's aimed at your larger environments that have a multitude of infrastructure and networks that are hybrid across different environments. It integrates into quite a few tools, such as your email system, and file systems. 

This tool is not for everybody. IBM doesn't have the sort of tool that helps a five, ten, or twenty user environment. This is not advisable to go and invest in the solution. There are other tools that you could possibly look at that do probably some of the functions in terms of monitoring your playbooks and integration points that are a little bit easier to map to. However, that is not a tool for every organization out there. The solution is targeting major enterprises.

I rate IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson a seven out of ten.

There are quite a few areas they could improve, such as they have a lot of technical manual configs and orchestration could be better.