When looking for a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solution, are you more likely to pick Devo or Seceon Open Threat Management Platform? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Are there specific use cases where one provides a better solution than the other?
When looking for a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solution, are you more likely to pick ClearSkies SaaS NG SIEM or Devo? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Are there specific use cases where one provides a better solution than the other?
PeerSpot’s crowdsourced user review platform helps technology decision-makers around the world to better connect with peers and other independent experts who provide advice without vendor bias.
Our users have ranked these solutions according to their valuable features, and discuss which features they like most and why.
You can read user reviews for the Top 8 Log Management Tools to help you d...
Devo, like other vendors, doesn't charge extra for playbooks and automation. That way, you are only paying for the side on the data ingestion. If you sign a contract, you are able to process as much as 500 gigabytes per day. With this price, you can connect 10 people, 20 people, 18 people, 80 people - it's very good. It's very efficient in terms of the cost of the license. Depending on if you are ingesting more than you sign up for, you have to pay more. There is potential for extra costs only in this one aspect, and not in the other services, or in other people who connect to the product. Devo provides you professional services. Professional services is a manner to give service to the clients in terms of consultants. Expert consultants help the customer to design the business case and can show them how to build it. This is an extra option, for people who want to take advantage of their insights.
Regarding pricing they were in the ballpark with most of the others we looked at, but one of the things that put them above and beyond is the 400 days of storage. That's big. They're a newer company so they may have cut better deals, but they were in the ballpark with at least a couple of the other front-runners that we were looking at. Devo is a good value and, given the quality of the product, I would expect to pay more. The fact that Devo only charges for ingestion works great for us. In some of the other solutions we looked at, depending on what you were doing with the data, extra charges were assessed. If you wanted to pull playbooks in, that was an extra charge. If you wanted to ingest certain types of logs from certain systems, that was an upcharge. In our environment and our business model, the month-to-month fluctuating charges just weren't an option, and many of the other solutions are going down that road. Devo provides good value: "Hey, here's your ingest, here's what you're licensed for, and here's what your annual bill is going to be. And if you go over that, then you true-up the next year." So it is a beneficial model for us. Overall, with the pricing model, Devo enables us to ingest more data compared to other solutions we evaluated. We don't have to worry about being billed more if we use any additional functionality or that we may have to set a cap on the ingest for the month or the week.
Devo's licensing model, given that they only charge for ingestion, is fine. It's risky to them, but I'm assuming they're going to manage that. If I'm ingesting a little bit of data, but I'm running a ton of queries on said data, it's going to be much more expensive for them. Whereas, if I ingest a ton of data and query every Nth period of time, then they will make more money off of it. Support was included in our licensing.
Pricing is pretty straightforward. It's based on daily log ingestion and retention rate. They keep it simple. They have breakpoints, depending on what your volume is. But I like that they keep it simple and easy to understand. There were no costs in addition to their standard licensing fees. I don't know if they're still doing this, but we got in early enough that all of the various modules were part of our entitlement. I think they're in the process changing that model a little bit so you can pick your modules. They're going to split it up and charge by the module. But everything was part of the package that we needed, day-one.
We have an OEM agreement with Devo. It is very similar to the standard licensing agreement because we are charged in the same way as any other customer, e.g., we use the backroom. However, we built this vertical model extending our portfolio, which is actually a Devo based model. We have a very simple invoice every month based on ingestion and the seniority of the data stored, which I think is the standard way they charge. Then, every other year we make a charge on a specific professional services project based on our module integration, which is probably unique for us compared to a standard customer.
I'm not involved in the financial aspect, but I think the licensing costs are similar to other solutions. If all the solutions have a similar cost, Devo provides more for the money. Because we are running an in-house solution, there is the extra cost for us, when compared to the cloud, in maintaining our own hardware, and the level-one and -two support we are doing. But we feel we won't need consultants in the future, which we needed with Splunk where we paid extra for a more defined platform and doing the work. Devo is very well-documented and the platform is very open.
It's a per gigabyte cost for ingestion of data. For every gigabyte that you ingest, it's whatever you negotiated your price for. Compared to other contracts that we've had for cloud providers, it's significantly less.