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

IBM Security QRadar vs Lumu 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

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
108
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (5th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (7th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (2nd)
IBM Security QRadar
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
217
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) (16th), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (4th), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (6th)
Lumu
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
16th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) (10th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Extended Detection and Response (XDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 4.9%, down from 5.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Security QRadar is 3.1%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Lumu is 1.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Extended Detection and Response (XDR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks4.9%
IBM Security QRadar3.1%
Lumu1.3%
Other90.7%
Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
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.
JJ
Director, Information Technology at a educational organization with 201-500 employees
Constant monitoring and analysis boosts network security
There is always room for improvement. I am not giving it a perfect score because I am sure there is something that could be enhanced.Having some sort of certification or training, along with more periodic webinars might be helpful. Having a larger support network would be beneficial. Nobody I know has heard of Lumu, so they are in the same space as Darktrace or CrowdStrike, but people give blank stares. As the community grows for Lumu then that will improve, but that is not really a criticism of Lumu, they simply have not been around that long.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup is easy."
"Cortex is the best tool for endpoint detection, with playbooks that automate and gather endpoint logs, block malicious processes, and update incident tickets, showcasing end-to-end processes with automation in investigation and reducing the analysis workflow."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable. It is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"Cortex is the best tool for endpoint detection, and I have used it to verify hashes or domains to identify malicious activity, trigger playbooks that automate and gather endpoint logs, block malicious processes, and update incident tickets, showcasing end-to-end processes with automation in investigation and reducing the analysis workflow."
"The main benefit of using Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks while employing Palo Alto Firewall at the internet edge is that it improves security on our endpoint devices, integrating seamlessly with Palo Alto Firewalls to deliver comprehensive network, analyst, and security details all in a single dashboard, which allows us to manage everything from our network devices."
"If the user leaves our premises or network, Palo Alto Traps will still be on that endpoint and will still apply our policies."
"On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a nine."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week."
"I would rate IBM Security QRadar nine out of ten."
"My overall rating for this solution is nine out of ten."
"This solution has allowed us to correlate logs from multiple sources."
"The most valuable feature is the searching capability and real-time operational use."
"IBM QRadar has improved my organization by introducing many functions. It collects logs from all of our systems in the organization and has functioned very well. It alerts and correlates the aggregate events or offenses we receive through all the applications we use."
"The most valuable features are all the implementations, the plug-ins, and the User Behavior Analytics (UBA)."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the integration capabilities on offer."
"The features that I have found most valuable in QRadar are its data enrichment, use case creations, and adding references - those kinds of features are very good. Also QRadar's event filtration and device integration are perfect."
"The tool's support team helps partners resolve any problems with the product."
"You can access external links, playbooks, MITRE Matrix, and a lot of information."
"Lumu has impacted my organization positively by providing continuous visibility into network compromise, allowing us to detect threats that were previously unnoticed, significantly reducing our mean time to detect and improving our ability to quickly validate and respond to incidents."
"I like Lumu's simple user interface. When we deployed it, we got full access, allowing us to identify IP addresses on the network and connect machine names to users. It helped us identify and block threats via the firewall. I also appreciate the chat support and ticket closure process. We're currently reviewing network detection solutions, and my recommendations include Lumu, Sentinel, and a few others. Regarding functionality and user-friendliness, I would recommend Lumu over the others."
"It's been helpful for overall extended network visibility."
"The context provided by the tool is very complete, it includes the miter matrix, playbooks, links, hashes, and much more."
"The automated response to incidents works effectively out of the box, and the number of interfaces and platforms it can work with is impressive."
"Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time."
 

Cons

"In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks can improve mobile integration to allow access to the console."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by offering remote management. It would be useful to look at the client's issue to fix it."
"The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced."
"It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc."
"Product might have some bugs."
"The quoting and the dashboard session could be improved. It should be more user-friendly."
"The solution is difficult to understand in the beginning and has complex management configurations that can be improved."
"The usability of interfaces could be improved."
"The solution could improve by having more out-of-the-box use cases."
"The implementation and configuration are not easy."
"I would like to see a more user-friendly product. At this stage, you need to use a lot of widgets to do your searches."
"IBM QRadar has outdated technology, and this is its area for improvement. When you try to implement an analytic expression, it's not updated. The solution doesn't support newer technologies, and it doesn't update regularly. For example, around the world, others implement new technologies, while IBM updates later than others."
"We did encounter stability issues as IBM’s patches are not stable at all."
"It would be good if we could access the physical logs."
"Lumu's ability to discover threats is an area of concern where improvements are needed."
"The integration with different vendors and endpoints could be improved."
"Lumu is solid for compromise detection, but there are a few areas where it could be improved, including deeper integration with SIEM and XDR, asset context enrichment, custom detection tuning, automated response capabilities, and reporting customization."
"The reports need improvement."
"Having a larger support network would be beneficial. Nobody I know has heard of Lumu, so they are in the same space as Darktrace or CrowdStrike, but people give blank stares."
"The free version is minimal compared to the full version."
"Nothing so far needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"In terms of the cost Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very expensive because we are a Mexican company and when you translate dollars to pesos the cost is very high. The solution is very expensive for Mexican companies. I understand that they have international prices, but I do not think it offsets the price enough for many companies in countries, such as Mexico. The amount it is reduced is not a massive percentage."
"The solution has one subscription for endpoint protection and one subscription for detection and response. The two licenses combined give you the BRO version."
"The pricing is a little bit on the expensive side."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"It's way too expensive, but security is expensive. You pay for your licensing, and then you pay for someone to monitor the stuff."
"When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"Only enterprise businesses can afford the tool."
"It's not expensive for the resources that it gives you."
"I think that the price is fair, but we can always say that the price could be cheaper."
"Most of the time, it is easier and cheaper to buy a new product or the QRadar box."
"There is an annual license required for this solution."
"On a scale of one to ten, I rate the price a one, where one is an extremely expensive product, and ten is a cheap product."
"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."
"think the pricing is quite flexible."
"The tool is available at a good price. The tool offers a good and competitive price for customers."
"Compared to Lumu, other solutions are more expensive. SentinelOne was a bit cheaper, and another provider's price structure is unclear, but Lumu fit our budget nicely. SentinelOne's cost depends on the number of devices, and it might be similar to Lumu's, depending on deployment."
"It is the cheapest solution we found."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Extended Detection and Response (XDR) solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 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
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Insurance Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business91
Midsize Enterprise39
Large Enterprise105
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise4
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
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...
What do you like most about Lumu?
Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time.
What needs improvement with Lumu?
There is always room for improvement. I am not giving it a perfect score because I am sure there is something that co...
What is your primary use case for Lumu?
We use it as our managed SOC instead of contracting with an MSP. It coordinates endpoint and gives us a single pane o...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
IBM QRadar, QRadar SIEM, QRadar UBA, QRadar on Cloud, IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Clients across multiple industries, such as energy, financial, retail, healthcare, government, communications, and education use QRadar.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Security QRadar vs. Lumu and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.