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

ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) vs Trellix ESM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

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

ArcSight Enterprise Securit...
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
26th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Trellix ESM
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
28th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) category, the mindshare of ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is 1.1%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix ESM is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
 

Featured Reviews

Ramnesh  Dubey - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows for monitoring logs according to industry standards within ESM but has a total capacity capped at 12 TB, limiting real-time data retention periods
The first limitation is with the ArcSight Data Storage Manager (ADSM). ArcSight's total capacity is currently capped at 12 TB. This becomes an issue if a customer needs a longer real-time data retention period, such as exceeding 90 days or reaching a year or even ten months. Increasing the disk space beyond 12 TB is not currently possible. So, increasing the storage capacity is one area for improvement. Additionally, the real-time data retention is limited due to the 12 TB restriction. Depending on the Events Per Second (EPS) you receive, you might only be able to retain data for seven to ten days. Overall, the 12 TB limit is the main issue we face in terms of maximizing real-time data storage. Moreover, there are a few improvements I would like to see in future releases. My main suggestion for ArcSight is to simplify the deployment process. Currently, the installation process is quite complex. There are various components involved, including transformations, multiple installations, and containerization for various components. Ideally, I'd recommend that ArcSight allow the entire installation, including the ESM and database, to be completed within a single unified setup process for a streamlined experience. Additionally, having readily available and well-organized documentation for the step-by-step installation process would be incredibly helpful. I would also like to see better support.
Daniel Durian - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to monitor and detect cyberattacks
The tool's effectiveness depends on how you define your log sources. To build visibility of incoming and outgoing traffic, you need logs from perimeter defense, firewalls, web application firewalls, and endpoint protection. With good traffic visibility, incident response time is really quick. Trellix ESM provides situation awareness. On the dashboard, I can see outbound and inbound communications to known threat hosts, IPS/IDS activity, and threat intelligence of the perimeter defense in the firewall. This information helps preempt attacks.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool is good for correlation and aggregation. We use it as a collection platform."
"Very good real-time reporting with a good dashboard."
"The feature that I have found the most useful is that it can be deployed to the cloud."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation of different logs that are collected."
"It is a very useful tool for intelligence building because it has many use cases and many rule sets."
"The correlation feature is good."
"Once the rules are defined, it becomes easy to detect changes and generate automated logs."
"What I found most valuable in ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is its good integration with third-party products. The solution also has good core capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation rules."
"The solution's technical support is great."
"The ease of use is the most valuable feature. Over the years I have always been using this solution and have become comfortable with it."
"It blocks the things which are not to be allowed. It has an adaptive mode where it learns for itself."
"The support I have received from the vendor has been great."
"The most valuable feature for us is that it comes with many correlations, reports, and dashboards already available. It's also very easy to use."
"The product’s most valuable feature is log monitoring."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to correlate different events from different platforms that we feed into it."
 

Cons

"Customer service and support is our biggest challenge."
"Currently lacks SOAR feature."
"The visualization is not very good compared to Splunk."
"The UI interface is somewhat complex and needs to be simplified."
"When we need to consume old events, we have to wait for a long time. ArcSight should improve the database capability to reply to queries faster. It would also be interesting if they implemented network visibility. For example, they could add a feature like NetWitness with a model just for looking through the packets."
"They need to develop NetFlow appliances that can be installed in the customer network on span ports, collect NetFlow, and send it to ArcSight without relying on the devices' NetFlow capability and their position in the network."
"The security area has room for improvement."
"The onboarding process for this solution could be better. It also needs a better GUI."
"We cannot add new data sources to the most recent version."
"McAfee ESM is not user-friendly and the log is not accurate. For instance, if I were assigned to generate a log for changes made today, I wouldn't be able to see all the modifications. While Palo Alto allows us to see all changes, McAfee ESM only captures one out of every ten changes. It's crucial to have visibility into all changes made."
"It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM. The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console. They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee."
"I have to purchase a new box now. Its existing box is not scalable and I can't use it anymore."
"I would like to see good analytics in future releases."
"The product is mature and needs little improvement, but we could enhance the customized dashboarding based on use cases."
"There should be support for multitenancy in the product."
"It cannot integrate with our Next-Generation Firewall and few applications such as Cisco ACI."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is super expensive. At our organization size and license model, I think the price is average to what anyone else would charge us."
"The licensing cost is affordable if you get an enterprise license. The licensing is based on EPS, so you can probably provide a package of license for multiple ESMs with their correlational end fees. It is cost-effective."
"Customers without a ton of resources to dedicate to deployment may be better served by a managed ArcSight service."
"ArcSight can be a little bit expensive because of the area that we work in and the cost. Licensing is mostly on a yearly basis, not monthly."
"We have a license to use this solution. The price of ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager is expensive."
"Aggregation can help a lot in pushing down licensing costs."
"ArcSight is pretty expensive compared with its competitors. I believe that is fine as it provides value."
"The pricing model is expensive compared to open-source alternatives."
"You should buy the distributed option instead of the all-in-one for environments with more than 1000 end points."
"We pay for our licensing fees on a yearly basis, and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The product is slightly expensive."
"Regarding pricing, Trellix ESM is not that expensive. It's less than half the cost of IBM QRadar."
"The licensing cost is based on EPS."
"McAfee is the right choice for a low-budget solution."
"The cost is all included. The finance department handles the financial part, and we mostly don't get involved in it."
"The pricing is good, and they are competitive compared to providers such as RSA and IBM QRadar."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Feb 26, 2015
HP ArcSight vs. IBM QRadar vs. ​McAfee Nitro vs. Splunk vs. RSA Security vs. LogRhythm
We at Infosecnirvana.com have done several posts on SIEM. After the Dummies Guide on SIEM, we are following it up with a SIEM Product Comparison – 101 deck. So, here it is for your viewing pleasure. Let me know what you think by posting your comments below. The key products compared here are…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
9%
Educational Organization
77%
Financial Services Firm
4%
Computer Software Company
3%
Comms Service Provider
3%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which is the best SIEM tool for a mid-sized financial services firm: Arcsight or Securonix?
In my market, a lot of financial companies had or have an ArcSight installation. Just because in former times it was pretty good. Now a lot of them are looking for a more effective solution due to ...
What do you like most about ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM)?
We utilize ArcSight ESM for real-time threat detection in our organization. We have custom rules that we've developed on top of the WAN services, along with scheduled licensing activities.
What do you like most about McAfee ESM?
The solution's technical support is great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee ESM?
Regarding pricing, Trellix ESM is not that expensive. It's less than half the cost of IBM QRadar.
What needs improvement with McAfee ESM?
The product is mature and needs little improvement, but we could enhance the customized dashboarding based on use cases.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ArcSight, HPE ArcSight, ArcSight
McAfee ESM, NitroSecurity, McAfee Enterprise Security Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lake Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bank AlJazira, Banca Intesa, and Obrela.
San Francisco Police Credit Union, Wªstenrot Gruppe, Volusion, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Government of New Brunswick, State of Colorado, Macquarie Telecom, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Cologne Bonn Airport
Find out what your peers are saying about ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) vs. Trellix ESM and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.