We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Cynet based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: IBM Security QRadar users say the solution provides extensive information and helpful leads for locating pertinent data. QRadar stands out with its comprehensive network visibility and strong SIEM capabilities. Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. IBM Security QRadar could improve its rule deployment and lower its false positive rate. Users would also like expanded storage capacity, streamlined user management, and a more mature architecture. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools.
Service and Support: Some customers of IBM Security QRadar have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents.
Ease of Deployment: IBM Security QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly.
Pricing: IBM Security QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Customers generally think Cynet is affordable and a good value for its features.
ROI: IBM Security QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer IBM Security QRadar over Cynet. The advanced security features and overall strength of QRadar make it the favored option. Users like QRadar's extensive and actionable insights, user-friendly interface, and adaptability. QRadar offers a comprehensive overview of network activity and risk management.
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a stable solution."
"My clients like Defender's file integrity monitoring. They're monitoring Windows and Linux system files."
"Advanced hunting is good. I like that. We can drill down to lots of details."
"There is also one dashboard that shows us the status of many controls at once and the details I can get... It gives a great overview of many areas, such as files, emails, chats, and links. Even with the apps, it gives you a great overview. In one place you can see where you should look into things more deeply..."
"The best feature is threat hunting. There are a lot of other features I like, such as the alert mechanism. The chain alert mechanism has a huge impact. It combines all the alerts into one incident and automatically correlates them with AI."
"I like Defender XDR's automation capabilities. XDR isn't automated by default, but you can automate it to respond. If an attack is performed anywhere within the organization, you can isolate that instance from the network. This is what I can figure out for it. When integrated with Sentinel, you can set up playbooks to automate all the alerts gathered on Sentinel from different Microsoft solutions. Sentinel has a wider range of capabilities than XDR."
"We can use Defender to block and monitor for security purposes without needing multiple other products to do different tasks."
"Microsoft 365 Defender's most valuable feature is the ability to control the shadow IP."
"Cynet's most valuable features are laptop and server performance, internal network monitoring, and external firewall lock management."
"The most valuable feature is the monitored support behind it."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"A reliable security system that automatically quarantines anything suspicious."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"The interface is exceptionally clear and easy to understand."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that it is a complete solution, which makes cyber security very free and almost perfect. There is no such thing as perfect cyber security, but as far as it can go, sign it comes close to being perfect and holistic. Cynet is always comprehensive from the perspective of functionality, as well as from the standpoint that it encompasses not only technology but also processes and people. The triad of people, processes, and technology is crucial and should always be in place. To my knowledge, no other product or platform combines all three components into one, but Cynet does."
"The features that I have found most valuable in QRadar are its data enrichment, use case creations, and adding references - those kinds of features are very good. Also QRadar's event filtration and device integration are perfect."
"QRadar shows very effective correlations. If you combine all the logins plus user behavior and the current intelligence, it gives a very good correlation for business. I think it reduces the false positives in user activity monitoring because there is a lot of social information to correlate with other data."
"It has a logical, user-friendly GUI."
"We are using the platform version, which I like."
"The solution is flexible and easy to use."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is it has very good data correlation."
"We get events and make the correlation, or rules. In IBM, we can implement our customer's rules. We can have very clear status threats and severity of antigens."
"When it comes to QRadar, they can do the correlation and not only in networks but also endpoints. This is one of the good features that we have noticed."
"Advanced attacks could use an improvement."
"It would be highly beneficial if CoPilot could identify anomalies within the network and notify the IT team."
"There are still some components, such as vulnerability management within the vendor product, where improved integration would be beneficial."
"The web filtering solution needs to be improved because currently, it is very simple."
"There are a few technical issues with Defender XDR that can be improved. Sometimes, the endpoint devices are not reporting properly to the Defender 365 portal. When you're getting all the information from the Microsoft portal, the devices are sometimes not in sync. We have hundreds of endpoint devices, some needing to be onboarded again."
"Offboarding latency should be reduced. Even after a device has been successfully offboarded using a particular offboarding script, it still shows up as onboarded."
"There is no common area where we can manage all the policies for the EDR, third-party solutions, devices, servers, Windows, Mac, etc., but it's on the road map, and we ware waiting for that feature."
"The interface could be improved. For example, if you want to do a phishing simulation for your employees, it can take a while to figure out what to do. The interface is a bit messy and could be updated. It isn't too bad, but doing some things can be a long process."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
"In future releases, I would like to see cloud security aspects included."
"Cynet fails to deploy the same technology in mobile devices."
"I would like to see support for mobile protection and some additional reports included."
"The solution lacks URL filtering."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"The inability to add contact information inside the Cynet is also an issue because it makes things more complicated. I would like to have a simple feature to enter a contact name and number for the person taking care of that unit or that server."
"Linux servers are not supported."
"Their technical support is not good. We opened a lot of cases and from my experience, they are not complicated issues but it takes forever to get an answer."
"QVM is another instance where they need to revise the vulnerability scoring and the proper remediation details."
"The IBM support can be better."
"Technical support really needs to be improved. Right now, they aren't where they need to be at all."
"QRadar needs a lot of fine tuning"
"It is not app based."
"I don't look at only the features and benefits; I also look at the price. It is a bit expensive when compared with other solutions. It is expensive for specific deployment topologies, and the decision-makers go for alternatives like ArcSight. It should also have more AI features or capabilities for better threat intelligence. The more it uses machine learning, the better would be the dashboard, analytics, and other things."
"I would like for Yara to be supported by all components."
Cynet is ranked 4th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 35 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 1st in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 198 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security. See our Cynet vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) vendors, best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors.
We monitor all User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) 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.