Coralogix vs Trellix ESM comparison

"The solution offers very good convenience filtering."

"For now, we have not experienced any stability issues."

"The log monitoring is good, and the dashboards that we create are beneficial."

"The best feature of this solution allows us to correlate logs, metrics and traces."

"The initial setup is straightforward."

"The solution is easy to use and to start with."

"Coralogix scales well, and I will rate it nine out of ten."

"Numerous data monitoring tools are available, but Coralogix somehow fine-tunes our policies and effectively supports our teams."

"It has performed well and delivered the results that I have been looking for."

"The solution is 100% stable. We really have had a great time working with it. It hasn't let us down."

"This solution integrates easily and very well with other technologies."

"The support I have received from the vendor has been great."

"The product’s most valuable feature is log monitoring."

"Compared to other solutions, the user interface is good."

"It is user-friendly. The notification part of McAfee ESM is very easy."

"It is easy to use."

"We want it to work at what it is expected to work at and not really based on the updated configuration which one developer has decided to change."

"The user interface is not intuitive, especially when first onboarding, and improvements could be made here."

"Maybe they could make it more user-friendly."

"The documentation of the tool could be improved"

"The user interface could be more intuitive and explanatory."

"From my experience, Coralogix has horrible Terraform providers."

"It would be helpful if Coralogix could integrate the main modules that any organization requires into a single subscription."

"Coralogix should have some AI capabilities to auto-detect anomalies and provide suggestions."

"The initial setup is difficult and could improve."

"McAfee is no more providing security updates on this product, and the enhancements to this product seem to have stopped. Moreover, we don't get proper support, and we struggle to get its support. It would be good if they can add some AI engine and out of the box use cases because it is currently limited to the same scenario and the same setup. I have done a POC for Securonix, LogRhythm. These products are much more ahead as compared to McAfee ESM. They have included multiple modules in the same solution. Correlation is very easy. If McAfee ESM can improve, especially in such implementations, then I believe it would be much better."

"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."

"Customized reports and alerting functionality could be included in the dashboard."

"The product’s alert response feature needs improvement. It could be more flexible and secure."

"The product is mature and needs little improvement, but we could enhance the customized dashboarding based on use cases."

"Update to user interface from version 9 is cosmetic in some aspects, and after a few clicks you are back on the old interface."

"The cost of the solution is per volume of data ingested."

"We are paying roughly $5,000 a month."

"Currently, we are at a very minimal cost, which is around $400 per month since we have reduced our usage. Initially, we were at $900 per month."

"The platform has a reasonable cost. I rate the pricing a three out of ten."

"The price is good. It's moderate. We follow a pay-as-you-go model. There are different models available, and they can also be monthly. You can choose monthly or yearly. It's very flexible. If our existing customers exceed the current plan, you can just call McAfee and get it extended."

"McAfee is the right choice for a low-budget solution."

"The pricing is good, and they are competitive compared to providers such as RSA and IBM QRadar."

"When compared to IBM Security QRadar and other similar platforms, the pricing of McAfee ESM is reasonable and comparatively less expensive."

"The cost is all included. The finance department handles the financial part, and we mostly don't get involved in it."

"The price of McAfee ESM is higher than some of the other solutions. There are additional features that can be added at an additional fee."

"We renew our license annually."

"The licensing cost is based on EPS."