We performed a comparison between NetWitness Platform and RSA enVision based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Investigations are something really remarkable. We can drill down right to the raw logs by running different queries and getting those on the console itself."
"The features that stand out are the detection engine and its integration with multiple data sources."
"The analytics has a lot of advantages because there are 300 default use cases for rules and we can modify them per our environment. We can create other rules as well. Analytics is a useful feature."
"Its inbuilt Kusto Query Language is a valuable feature. It provides the flexibility needed to leverage advanced data analytics rules and policies and enables us to easily navigate all our security events in a single view. It helps any user easily understand the data or any security lags in their data and applications."
"The Log analytics are useful."
"The UI of Sentinel is very good and easy to use, even for beginners."
"Native integration with Microsoft security products or other Microsoft software is also crucial. For example, we can integrate Sentinel with Office 365 with one click. Other integrations aren't as easy. Sometimes, we have to do it manually."
"We didn't have anything similar. So, it really provides value from the incidents and automation point of view. The overview of the security fabric is most valuable."
"Incident management is its most valuable feature."
"The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult."
"The most valuable feature is the security that it provides."
"Offers a good wireless feature."
"It gives the ability to investigate into network traffic in the Net and the organization what we couldn't do before."
"It's quite economical compared to other solutions in the market."
"Alerting Module: It provides real-time event processing language on all the logs/packets stream for advanced alerting, i.e., using SQL LIKE statements."
"It gives the capability for the incident response team to correlate logs to identify any kind of problem like malware and incidents in a general sense, both for logs and packets."
"The most valuable feature is the management features. It's capable of managing large enterprises."
"The configuration part is very easy...The technical support was sincere in their responses...I rate the technical support a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the reporting."
"I would like to see more AI used in processes."
"There are certain delays. For example, if an alert has been rated on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, it might take up to an hour for that alert to reach Sentinel. This should ideally take no more than one or two seconds."
"If Azure Sentinel had the ability to ingest Azure services from different tenants into another tenant that was hosting Azure Sentinel, and not lose any metadata, that would be a huge benefit to a lot of companies."
"Microsoft Sentinel should provide an alternative query language to KQL for users who lack KQL expertise."
"Sentinel still has some anomalies. For example, sometimes when we write a query for log analysis with KQL, it doesn't give us the data in a proper way... Also, the fields or columns could be improved. Sometimes, it is not giving the desired results and there is a blank field."
"The learning curve could be improved. I am still learning it. We were able to implement the basic features to get them up and running, but there are still so many things that I don't know about all its features. They have a lot of features that we have not been able to use or apply. If they could work on reducing the solution's learning curve, that would be good. While there is a training course held by Microsoft to learn more about this solution, there is a cost associated with it."
"There is some relatively advanced knowledge that you have to have to properly leverage Sentinel's full capabilities. I'm thinking about things like the creation of workbooks, how you do threat-hunting, and the kinds of notifications you're getting... It takes time for people to ramp up on that and develop a familiarity or expertise with it."
"We are invoiced according to the amount of data generated within each log."
"It is not so easy to customize this product."
"The initial setup was complex because it takes a lot of time to complete the implementation."
"It should have a monitoring feature. It would help us analyze the current state of attacks faster from a single platform."
"Health monitoring of the event sources and devices."
"I believe that integrating the solution with other products such as Oracle would be beneficial."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The multi-tenant capabilities are lagging compared to IBM QRadar."
"The implementation needs assistance."
"In general, the solution currently isn't user-friendly."
"The integration could be easier, it should support more products."
"RSA enVision log manager is out of date and is not in use anymore."
NetWitness Platform is ranked 15th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 36 reviews while RSA enVision is ranked 36th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 5 reviews. NetWitness Platform is rated 7.4, while RSA enVision is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of NetWitness Platform writes "Can find out if there is lateral movement, but integration and workflow need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA enVision writes "Though the solution offers good technical support, it needs to be made more user-friendly ". NetWitness Platform is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, Trellix Network Detection and Response and LogRhythm SIEM, whereas RSA enVision is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security and IBM Security QRadar. See our NetWitness Platform vs. RSA enVision report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.