IBM Security QRadar Reviews

We primarily use QRadar for monitoring and preparing use cases. 

This solution is deployed on-prem. 

The most important and valuable feature of QRadar is how useful it is for preparing use cases. It's also easy to use. 

The GUI of QRadar should be improved. 

I have been using IBM QRadar for one year. 

QRadar is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

I have contacted IBM's technical support—it was great. They are very knowledgeable. 

QRadar is very easy to install, and I can do it myself. The time period will depend on the organization itself, since it depends on the environment and the number of servers and endpoints. 

I implemented this solution myself. 

I pay for licensing yearly. 

I also evaluated a lot of SIEM solutions, but I like LogRhythm and QRadar. 

I rate QRadar an eight out of ten. I would recommend QRadar, as well as LogRhythm, to others considering implementation. 

From a sales perspective, IBM QRadar is very competitive when it comes to prices. It's a flexible and valuable product. It has a good edge in the region and good references as well. You can easily capitalize and upsell on whatever you sold previously.  It's a modular product, so you can set up a roadmap and plan for your customers. This is one of the main advantages of QRadar.

Right now, there are a lot of solutions in the market that consider themselves next-gen SIEM solutions, like AzureVM. IBM QRadar can be revised considering the competition, market segment, references, and the maintenance of the landscape.

Some modules can be shared as embedded within the same solution because this would be a compelling edge versus others. When it comes to other products, like LogRhythm for example, they can consider the SOAR and the threat Intel embedded with the SIEM Solution licenses. However, when it comes to IBM, they consider each module as a separate license with a separate cost. So it doesn't make sense to compete if the customer isn't convinced with IBM, because you'd have tough competition when it comes to financials.

I have been using QRadar for more than five to six years.

IBM QRadar is a stable product.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We are users and implementers of this solution. 

I like the new dashboard which enables us to understand how many real threat attempts are made in a day. I also like the QRadar incident response, we installed the QIF last week. The solution has improved visibility so that we've been able to discover that some of our customers have not had any protection and were very vulnerable. It's an important area. I also find that the user behavior analysis is relatively simple. We are customers of QRadar. 

I think the user management model is very detailed but you really have to know what you're doing just to be able to manage things. I think the solution lacks some maturity. When you put it in a large organization as a security system or a cybersecurity system and you want to enable automation, it's difficult to get that level of maturity. 

We've been using this solution for about 18 months.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. We have a total of 19 users in the company. The solution is used extensively and we plan to increase the number of users. 

The technical support could be better. I'd rather work with my implementing expert and not the OEM. Although they have the expertise, the development guys are very slow.

We tested a few other solutions including AlienVault, Splunk, Micro Focus, and Outside. QRadar was the best of the breed for our needs and for a big system like ours, it's less complex than Splunk or Outside. 

The initial setup is complex. Theory is one thing and practice is another. We had to go back and forth with IBM just to find the relevant versions with the relevant operating system to sit on the relevant virtual environment. Then we found a few bugs. We are in a production system in a very big organization so deployment was carried out in stages. It took about a month in total to get things working and to start collecting logs. We had help from IBM Azure.
Maintenance is required, you have to watch it, and work on it on a daily basis. 

We pay an annual license fee. On top of that, every model adds to the cost. It's not just the license; the sales people want you to think you're only paying for certain things but we know how it works. 

The pre-design and the low-level design should be very, very, specific. It's important to check that the compatibility is there. If not, neither IBM nor OEM will support you.

I would rate the solution more highly but it's very expensive and given the high cost, I would expect quicker and better service from the OEM so I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

The main tool for this operation center for collectings events from different devices, whatever server or network devices, such as switches and routers. It handles anything related to data that can be harmful related to security. Those events can be mapped to promote the threat, it creates another event for promoted threats.

We are a service provider and we provide services to our customers. We use IBM QRadar for many types of businesses, such as banks and telecom. It has a good reputation.

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.

I have been using IBM QRadar for approximately two years.

I have found IBM QRadar to be stable.

IBM QRadar is scalable.

The technical support of IBM QRadar is good.

IBM QRadar is the best SAN solution we have used compared to the others.

We manage the installation of the solution. It is not something difficult, it is reasonable. It is not that easy for anyone to do, it needs a technical team.

The implementation needs a technical team and we have two engineers for the implementation and maintenance.

There is a license to use this solution, which is paid annually. However, there are subscription options available.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM QRadar an eight out of ten.

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.

I was initially a reseller before selling the solution from within IBM. I'm currently a freelance security sales consultant. 

A valuable feature is the detection capability. I like that the solution can use data other than log data which means that things like vulnerability data, network data and the like, are part of the correlation and detection.

I think they could change their pricing model to be more cost effective. It currently relies on data ingestion. I'd like to see IBM extend their capability with the solution to include more than just fault finding, features such as predictive identification of threads. Having better support for things like MITRE and the ATT&CK chain, and using all of the known attacks that are out there when they're actually spotting events and correlations. 

I've used this solution for 10 years. 

The solution is very scalable. 

Technical support is pretty good, but sometimes when the problems are complex they can be slow to respond. 

The initial setup is very easy. I think it's one of the easiest SIMs to use. 

IBM has recently come out with a new version called Cloud Pak for Security but I haven't used it yet. It contains not just QRadar, but also IBM's resilience incident response products. 

I recommend the solution but because of the issues with pricing and technical support, I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

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.

It is suitable for large companies with critical infrastructure. For our clients, robustness, availability at a high level, and the level of references and experiences connected to the solution are important. They need to know that other energy players are also using it.

There should be easier and wider integration opportunities. There should be more 
opportunities for integration with CTI info sharing areas. On platforms where you exchange CTI, there should be more visibility connected to what we share, what we can reach, or what options are connected to CTI info sharing. This is one area where they could add value because we cannot integrate it easily with QRadar. If a client has a legacy or already existing solutions for CTI, we cannot ask them to forget it because we cannot guarantee that QRadar is able to deliver everything connected to this area. 

I have been using this solution for three years.

We have five to ten customers of this solution. My impression is that it can cost a lot to scale upwards. It didn't bother us in most cases, but that could be a problem for SMEs at times.

Their support during the operation seems fine. I'm a consultant, and very often, I am offsite. I am not there when clients get into operating QRadar in the long run. So, I know more about implementation than the operation itself.

It requires expertise. If you have the right personnel, you can manage. It wouldn't be easy for a client and admins to set it up without proper support or support from QRadar itself.

Setting it up requires an assistant like us. QRadar plays a role there, but that's not enough. There is also the language barrier. Not every Hungarian company is good in English, and IBM naturally doesn't have full Hungarian support.

It requires cooperation between clients and us. Typically, we send a team of five people that includes tech guys, a project manager, and maybe one process guy, if needed. Generally, you don't have 360-degree professionals, so you have someone good in networking, someone good in log management or log analysis, and so on. Because of that, we need this kind of team. 

The client also has a few people. Typically, we send in more people than the client. These are not full-time people on our side and client-side. 

It could be cheaper, but the value itself is far more important for us than the price. Typically, our clients have yearly subscriptions.

I don't know what I would recommend for SMEs because we never worked with SMEs, but I would be very careful in recommending QRadar for SMEs. 

I would rate IBM QRadar a nine out of 10.