IBM Security QRadar Reviews

We are using it for visibility and compliance.

The visibility it gives you into your infrastructure has been great.

The notifications it provides offer valuable information when something is happening in your blind spot.

The AI engine could be smarter. 

It is a bit expensive. 

I've used the solution for about three years. 

The solution is stable. I'd rate it five out of five. It's very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales well, and it's easy to do. I'd rate it five out of five in terms of the ease of scalability. 

We have a lot of users on the solution currently. We have customers on the product as well. There are likely more than 500 users inside and outside the organization. 

Support has been helpful and responsive. There may sometimes be a delay. However, they do get you the information you need. 

We've only ever used IBM. 

The setup is a bit complex. I'd rate it two out of five in terms of ease of deployment. It took us a week to get everything up and running. 

We had two engineers working on deployment and maintenance. 

We handled the solution in-house. We did not need outside assistance. 

We've seen a good ROI. I'd give it a five out of five. 

It's a bit pricey as a product. I'd rate it a two out of five, with five being the most affordable. It depends on what you buy; the longer you use it, the better the cost. It's an all-inclusive license. You don't need to pay for extra features. 

We did look at a few other options. 

We use the solution inside our organization. Our clients use it too. We are a premium partner in our region. 

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It really provides good visibility.

We are mainly using predefined rules on IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics

When we started using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics's add-on or extension, we received more than 17 new use cases. Our organization has benefited from using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics's most important feature is its ease of use. 

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics could improve machine learning use cases because they are limited and most of the use cases are rule-based. They should develop more use cases, such as in Securonix or Exabeam because they will detect a threat. Using machine learning is mainly on the correlation rules, but if you think about Exabeam or Securonix, they detect using machine learning or machine learning-based algorithms.

Using the interface of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is the same for years, they should redesign the interface to make it more modern. Some historical queries take a long time, they should improve or change their database. There are some missing operators on the correlation side. For example, some before operated.

I have been using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics for approximately three years.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is stable most of the time. However, it works on the client-side which requires a lot of system resources, such as RAM. In some cases, if the work is high, the stability deteriorates, but mainly it is stable.

The scalability of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is good. 

We have two people using this solution. We do not have plans to increase usage.

We use a consultancy company for support and are not directly connected to IBM support.

The deployment of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is very easy when compared to other machine learning solutions. The full deployment took approximately three weeks with less than 5,000 EPAs.

We used a consultant that help us deploy and do maintenance for IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics.

I rate the return on investment of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics a four out of five.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is an application framework and you can install many applications without any additional costs.

I rate the price of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics a four out of five.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is a good solution. If there is a big enough budget they might be able to afford the solution since it is expensive. If the conditions are okay, then they should select the solution.

I rate IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics a six out of ten.

Our primary use case is logging for any anomalous traffic in terms of access times and deviations when users are in different groups within the AD. When a user deviates from their functionality, it's flagged in the UBA and for VPN traffic. I also use it for geolocation functionality. We are partners of IBM and I'm a system engineer. 

The timeline and the machine learning features are great at quickly flagging users who have either left the organization or have dormant accounts. The way that the app has transformed over time is quite phenomenal. One of the major improvements is its capacity for creating machine models. It comes with 16 default machine learning models, where it tracks user activity and changes in profiles and authentications. There are various default machine learning models and I'm able to model those to parameters that suit my needs. It's great that I'm able to implement an unlimited number of use cases on the UBA, putting in as many different kinds of logic as I want. It's a big advantage. 

I'd like to see improved support from the vendor. In addition there are things that are not documented on the IBM site. If you'd like to do something at a high level, the information is not available in the documentation and you have to find it elsewhere. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution has never crashed or failed, it's stable. 

We haven't tested scalability and currently have around 100 users. I'm responsible for maintenance.

The customer support is helpful but that's more about it being a good solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward, it's just a download and it installs. It's a matter of configuring a few parameters in terms of tweaking the thresholds that you want the app to fire in on. Installing takes a few seconds, but in terms of letting it land so that you can tweak it and tune the various metrics, takes about a week. 

This is a free solution which is one of the main reasons we chose it. It's just a matter of getting a license for the curator as a platform.

I recommend this solution and rate it seven out of 10. 

To be very frank, it's not that much help as of now. We are not getting that many insights from UVA, which we wanted, actually. As of now, we are exploring that UVA, and we have installed it. It's still quite new.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The solution is still new to us. Currently, it's a work in progress with this. I'm not in any particular condition to tell what exact improvements are required. I will let a few more months go by before analyzing the overall UBS solution QRadar to get to know and final understanding of this particular application.

There are a lot of things that require modification. That's my initial observation, however, I need more time and a few more months to get to know it and get a final understanding of the solution as a whole.

I want a reduction of false positives. I want crisp true positive incidents out of it. I want to see proper user behavior. Whatever algorithm is working in the background, that algorithm should produce accurate, true positive incidents and not false positives.

We are using QRadar as an appliance for the last four years, however, we recently, for the last six months, started using UBS.

I'm not sure about the stability just yet. We've observed a few issues and we raised a supporting ticket for it.

The scalability is very good. It's not a problem.

Technical support has been very supportive. We're largely satisfied with them.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. It's not very complex. 

We are using multiple features in QRadar. UVA is just one feature. We have overall 14 data nodes and we are almost 2,500 GB of data integrated with it and we are using multiple applications in QRadar. We have a nine-member team that manages the overall QRadar architecture, not only UBA.

We did a direct integration.

I'm an architect. Normally costs and licensing are handled by senior management.

For UBA, they haven't asked for any extra charges or anything. It's included in the licensing.

We're an IBM partner. We have platinum support with IBM.

We have segregated our data between on-prem and the cloud. All the on-prem data we have integrated with the QRadar. QRadar itself is an on-prem solution. We have QRadar hardware with us.

At this point, I would not recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

I'm an administrator. I have been leading the security operation center for the past four years. I have more than 12 members or SOC analysts for our 24/7 operations. I have been pitching the solutions to multiple customers, and I have also designed, implemented, and administered customer projects and completed them at the specified timeline.

We have many use cases. The most common use cases are related to insights into any threats from the inside and outside. I have also configured X-Force with QRadar, and we are getting all the feeds showing malware-based IPs, etc. I also have designed some anomaly-based rules in case anyone has logged in from outside Pakistan. Most of the rules are custom-based.

The QNI feature is the one I am very interested in, and I have also been interested in Watson. From the log analysis and the security perspective, we are able to dive deep into any of the logs and anomalies.

It is user-friendly, and it is easy to develop. If you know the architecture, what to develop, and how to get the output for your results, you can easily work with it.

I have also been working with other SIEM solutions, and I have observed that they have extensive Linux-based and Unix-based integrations. They have been able to support some of the Linux-based agents, which is useful to investigate and process the information on the Linux and Unix side.

It could have pre-defined automation and integration of all those device parameters that analysts have to share manually.

It is stable.

I would rate them a 3.5 out of 5.

It is not very difficult. I have done more than 10 deployments, and I have integrated and developed custom applications. I have also developed a Python-based script to support me with the things that IBM cannot support. I am using that script from the health check perspective. It gives me a high-level and low-level overview of QRadar with respect to the rules that have been triggered and the notifications that have been generated and how to tune them.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

When it sends the log source, QRadar generates a lot of noise and false positives. LogRhythm logs when the alarm rules are disabled, so it doesn't generate any noise when sending the log source. I think LogRhythm's one, this one too. QRadar, we have to cure it all the time. It's only this advantage with QRadar.

I would also like to see more integration with other vendors. IBM doesn't integrate well with products from China, like Huawei. Many Middle Eastern customers are switching to Huawei from American vendors like Cisco because of the price. In most RFPs, Huawei wins because it costs less. 

IBM needs to integrate better with Huawei. I opened one case with IBM, and they told me to submit a request for enhancement so they could write the correct DSMs to integrate with Huawei. We were very disappointed. Customers who want to implement QRadar or LogRhythm need to consider all the other components. The environment needs to be homogenous to avoid problems due to a lack of integration.

My old company used QRadar, so I still use it sometimes when I consult for them. They get stuck on a few things. I also worked on vulnerability discovery. Right now, my current customers are migrating from QRadar to LogRhythm.

QRadar is built around Red Hat Linux, which is highly robust.

IBM's support for QRadar could be improved. Sometimes it takes them two days to reply to a low-priority case. However, it tasks them about 1.5 hours to respond to a more serious case. Sometimes our customer service will think it's a priority one case, so he asks me to open it as priority one, then IBM reduces it to two or three. 

We don't have any security appliances from Huawei, but they have the best technical support. We have engineers everywhere with CRM, and they call you after the problem is resolved. IBM closes the case, and that's it. It's a very restricted environment. 

QRadar is reasonable compared to LogRhythm.

I rate IBM QRadar nine out of 10. If you're going to use QRadar, you have to be familiar with it and know all the components. IBM offers free appliances, like data nodes, that offload many processes from the collectors and the processors. 

Every engineer must understand the overall portfolio to add some value to the solutions. If a solution isn't integrated with other solutions, they are only collectors. You need to tune the rules and be up to date with the Mitre Att&ck framework all the time.

I am a Product Manager. I am managing the inventory and the logs. For R&D purposes, we downloaded various SIEM solutions from the internet to analyze their performance, and QRadar was one of them. I downloaded the Community Edition of QRadar to check its capabilities and see how to integrate various log sources in our network. It is in my lab, and I have tested it with a few hardware devices and a few computers and servers.

What I like the most about it is that you can very easily install and configure it. As compared to other SIEM solutions, for which you need to know and do a lot more to prepare your SIEM environment, QRadar is much simpler to install and configure. There are various options in the Admin console. In the Admin tab, you can design dashboards and view various graphs. It has a lot of attractive features, and you don't need to configure everything on your own.

I have noticed a few things while working on this. After the restart of the server, sometimes, the services misbehave, and you need to manually start or restart the service. I have seen that specifically with the Tomcat service. 

Sometimes, when you click on log sources, instead of opening the log source extension, it redirects you over the internet. 

There are two types of dashboards in QRadar. One is the conventional or old one, and the other one is Pulse. The Pulse dashboard is better, but we would like to have more options in the dashboard.

Additionally, if possible, there should be a single product for SIEM and SOAR. Instead of having QRadar and Resilient separately, there should be a combined solution to benefit from both. Furthermore, there should be a built-in mechanism to configure it in the cluster mode and high availability mode.

I tested this product in the last two, three months. It is not implemented in our company.

Its installation is very simple. You can install it and configure it very easily.

We are looking at implementing a SIEM solution, and currently, we're comparing various commercial and open-source SIEM solutions. We have tested Wazuh, which is an open-source SIEM solution, but we have not finalized anything.

I would rate it a seven out of 10. It is good, but when a product doesn't behave in a good manner, it creates confusion. Its behavior isn't consistent.

We are using mixed solutions. We are currently working with IBM solutions and Azure system services. We are using two SIEM solutions: Azure Sentinel and QRadar. Azure Sentinel is covering our cloud-based solutions, and QRadar is covering our on-premise solutions.

QRadar has a lot of connectors out of the box. It has a lot of predefined and pre-deployed connectors that you can use. 

It has a lot of good correlation rules. From a customer's point of view, it is one of the best solutions because you don't need to create correlation rules from scratch. You just review them and customize them as you want. 

It supports using SQL queries. Sentinel uses KQL, but you need to learn it from scratch.

It doesn't have a SOAR system by default. You need to purchase it additionally, which is the main problem with QRadar. 

Its reporting can be improved.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. It works for small, medium, and large enterprises. You can have a huge SOC, and you can implement it in a big company. 

Our company has more than 5,000 assets, and we are covering them all with the QRadar system.

We are using Azure Sentinel for our cloud-based solutions. The best functionality that you can get from Azure Sentinel is the SOAR capability. So, you can estimate any type of activity, such as when an alert was triggered or an incident was found.

Azure Sentinel doesn't have many connectors for third-party SIEM solutions. Many customers are struggling with the integration of Azure Sentinel with their on-premise SIEM.

If we start to collect all logs from our on-premise SIEM solutions, Azure Sentinel will cost much more than QRadar. If we calculate its cost over the next five or ten years, it will cost more than QRadar.

You have a one-time payment, and you also can purchase it for one year as a subscription. We have it on-premise, and we have a permanent license for it. We have to pay for the support on a yearly basis.

If you compare its cost with Sentinel for one year, QRadar would seem more expensive, but if you compare its cost over five or ten years, Azure Sentinel will be more expensive than QRadar.

I would recommend purchasing a cloud-based license subscription because it doesn't have any limits on the license. You can easily install it in a cloud environment. This cloud pack can be integrated with different types of SIEM solutions. So, you can use one management console to query all of the SIEM systems that you are managing. It is like having one window to manage your SOC. For example, a SOC can operate, manage, or provide services for different types of companies, and all these companies can have different types of SIEM solutions. With the cloud subscription of QRadar, you can cover all companies, which is good in my opinion.

I would recommend both QRadar and Azure Sentinel. It depends on the use case of a customer and the environment that they are using.

I would rate QRadar a seven out of ten.