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

IBM Resilient vs IBM Security QRadar comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 25, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (7th), AI-Powered Security Automation (2nd)
IBM Resilient
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
17th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Security Incident Response (4th)
IBM Security QRadar
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
219
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (7th), Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (3rd), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (2nd), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (15th), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (6th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 4.5%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Resilient is 2.1%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Security QRadar is 6.2%, down from 8.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM Security QRadar6.2%
Torq4.5%
IBM Resilient2.1%
Other87.2%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

Nimrod Vardi - PeerSpot reviewer
Global IT Director at OpenWeb
Automation workflows have transformed our IT, enabling secure just-in-time access control
We work with them quite often, so we have a direct line regarding areas in Torq that have room for improvement. If we have a feature request, we can request it. I do not have anything in mind at the moment. We were a design partner for a short while, so we feel that they listen and that users of the system have an impact on the way the system is designed for the better. They have a new community, which is something that I personally suggested years ago. There are many people like me in different places and they might have already built the workflow that I need. Having the option to share workflows or to jump on a thread and say I have this need, did anyone ever build a workflow for it, is amazing. Someone would jump in and say yes, sure, here, take this workflow. I think this is an amazing thing and I really hope that the community will come alive because I think this is really powerful. This is something that I already suggested and it did happen eventually, and I am quite happy with it. I do not have any specific feature in mind that I have a need for at the moment.
Usman Bhatti - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Officer Security Operations Center at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Simple deployment, scalable, but lacking third-party solution compatibility
Integrating IBM Resilient with other applications can be very difficult and technically challenging. Often, they use the excuse that you are using the latest version of an application, such as an endpoint security system, and they don't have an API or support for it at the moment. There is no automation in the SOAR solution. It's worth noting that many third-party add-on applications needed to be purchased separately to integrate with IBM Resilient. While there were built-in applications available for incident remediation, the selection was limited. Additionally, integrating third-party applications was often a difficult and time-consuming process due to the technical complexity involved.
HarshBhardiya - PeerSpot reviewer
SOC Engineer at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
Have managed daily asset and alert monitoring effectively but have encountered limitations with manual processes and interface usability
It's still very manual and doesn't work on its own. It's still in an early stage and not on par where we can consider it a really successful detection system. The accuracy is not there. The UI could be better when compared to Sentinels where we can use flags and tagging. It could be much more user-friendly. IBM Security QRadar has all features and is fully competitive with other SIEM tools, but when it comes to user-friendliness, a new user takes time to get used to it. More intuitive, user-friendly interfaces and more helpful documentation would be beneficial. The query searching and data fetching could be faster. In large to very large organizations with around 5,000 or 6,000 assets or beyond, even with proper configurations and RAM and hardware backing up, the query is fairly slow.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"What I appreciate most about Torq is that it is an essential part of our system."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"If I review about 100 vendors that I might work with, Torq is definitely in the top five that gave me personally investment back, just because every bit of effort I put into Torq eventually became a workflow that gave it back to me."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"It's really simple and has a flexible interface."
"The most valuable thing about it is how easy it is to navigate the user interface."
"IBM Resilient is scalable."
"The solution is reliable in our usage."
"The solution is simple to use and to integrate with IBM QRadar."
"The most valuable features of IBM Resilient are its flexibility and customization options for incident response."
"The initial setup of IBM Resilient is not that complex since my company already has a support license that we use internally. In general, the product's deployment phase is not that complex."
"Senses, tracks, and links significant incidents and threats."
"It comes with many rules disabled. You can tune them and modify them according to your enterprise needs and avoid false positives."
"It has improved my efficiency."
"This is a distributed application, meaning that a customer can stack small and then scale it so that they can expand pretty effectively. You can use, basically, the same product in an SMB or a large enterprise."
"The rule engine is very easy to use — very flexible."
"Search capabilities are sufficient for most tasks."
"It protect us from multiple authentication values, unauthorized access and antivirus threats."
"The correlation and the parsing are important features, since it is very important for a SIEM to have a good scalability and performance."
 

Cons

"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Integrating IBM Resilient with other applications can be very difficult and technically challenging. Often, they use the excuse that you are using the latest version of an application, such as an endpoint security system, and they don't have an API or support for it at the moment. There is no automation in the SOAR solution."
"The tool needs to improve its documentation on license scripts."
"The product needs a bit more development."
"The ability to analyze incidents needs to be improved in the solution."
"IBM Resilient is quite complex, including its configuration."
"The implementation could be a bit simpler."
"The integration could be improved so that it is easy to integrate with other solutions."
"There are shortcomings with IBM Resilient's technical support team that can be considered for improvement in the future."
"IBM QRadar has a margin for development, for out-of-the-box use cases. It can be enhanced with better support and automate the use cases for that."
"IBM Security QRadar’s GUI could be improved."
"The tool is very complicated. One place for improvement would be to have a more user-friendly interface. Having better support in Spanish would be cool."
"There is room for improvement in IBM QRadar in integrating features for SOC maturity and security levels directly into QRadar."
"The AI engine could be smarter."
"IBM Security QRadar has many issues nowadays, particularly with WinCollect integrations and Windows-based WinCollect agent integrations. I was exhausted handling errors in WinCollect."
"The product needs to improve its GUI."
"QVM is another instance where they need to revise the vulnerability scoring and the proper remediation details."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a three out of ten. The tool’s pricing is on a yearly basis."
"It is very expensive."
"The cost of the product is quite high."
"There are no costs except for the support services that our company pays in addition to the licensing charges attached to the solution."
"There is a license you need to pay for in order to use this product."
"The licensing cost for IBM Resilient is not too expensive, but it's not affordable, so it's moderately expensive. Regarding price, I'm rating the solution seven out of ten. The company pays for the license yearly, based on the number of users. Apart from the cost of the license you need to pay for each user, you also need to spend an initial investment for the base platform. You also have to pay for IBM Resilient support."
"We could create unlimited users using the license we had purchased."
"Pricing for the solution is good, in my opinion."
"The solution is priced fairly, there is a license for the solution, and we pay annually."
"Licensing can be costly depending on your architecture."
"The pricing is higher but cheaper than others and there are no additional costs."
"Most of the time, it is easier and cheaper to buy a new product or the QRadar box."
"When it comes to the initial pricing there can be a huge discount from there side and also I think they are open to competing with other products."
"The maintenance costs are high."
"It is cheaper than ArcSight."
"There is a license required for this solution and it is an annual payment. I have found all solutions in the category to be expensive, including Splunk."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Manager, Enterprise Risk Consulting at a tech company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Jun 28, 2015
Qradar vs. ArcSight
Continuing with the SIEM posts we have done at Infosecnirvana, this post is a Head to head comparison of the two Industry leading SIEM products in the market – HP ArcSight and IBM QRadar Both the products have consistently been in the Gartner Leaders Quadrant. Both HP and IBM took over niche SIEM…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business91
Midsize Enterprise39
Large Enterprise105
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
Regarding the downsides of Torq, one issue is that as a SaaS product, I sometimes encounter transparency issues about...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
My role is Cyber Security Engineer, and we use Torq for our case management platform, automating some of our phishing...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
Torq's maintenance requirements depend on how you define maintenance. While Torq handles the platform's overall relia...
What do you like most about IBM Resilient?
It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Resilient?
I am not the one in charge of pricing, so I am not sure about the costs.
What needs improvement with IBM Resilient?
Integration with some devices, including Cisco PowerPower and certain antivirus products, has limitations.
What are the biggest differences between Securonix UEBA, Exabeam, and IBM QRadar?
It mostly depends on your use-cases and environment. Exabeam and Securonix have a stronger UEBA feature set, friendli...
What SOC product do you recommend?
For tools I’d recommend: -SIEM- LogRhythm -SOAR- Palo Alto XSOAR Doing commercial w/o both (or at least an XDR) is a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Security QRadar?
Pricing and the license of EPS were managed by the governance team. I was not responsible for managing those. I was s...
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
IBM QRadar, QRadar SIEM, QRadar UBA, QRadar on Cloud, IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Golden Living, Health Equity, USA Funds
Clients across multiple industries, such as energy, financial, retail, healthcare, government, communications, and education use QRadar.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Resilient vs. IBM Security QRadar and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.