We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Datadog based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: 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. Datadog users like its customizable displays, error tracking, and advanced AI/ML capabilities. 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. Datadog could enhance its usability and reduce its learning curve. Users said integration was another pain point.
Service and Support: Some QRadar customers have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. While many users spoke highly of Datadog’s support team, others reported slow support, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
Ease of Deployment: QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Datadog’s setup is considered straightforward, and users often receive help from a partner or vendor.
Pricing: QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Opinions about Datadog's price are divided. Some users found it costly, but others thought it was acceptable. Some said the pricing model could be clearer and better explained.
ROI: QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Users said Datadog saved them time and improved visibility into security blind spots.
"The solution's SaaS model is easy to manage and works well in single- or multi-cloud environments."
"It is a good one stop location where we keep all our data for our infrastructure, and it's also easier to navigate between different things."
"It has provided visibility with ease of implementation and allowed multiple teams to quickly onboard it."
"The most valuable feature of Datadog is its logs."
"We enjoy the multistep API tests."
"The ability to easily drill down into log queries quickly and efficiently has helped us to resolve several critical incidents."
"Datadog is providing efficiency in the products we develop for the wireless device engineering department."
"Going from viewing a metric to creating a monitor alerting on a metric is very easy."
"IBM Qradar's ability to simplify the number of events, not only on a technical level but by making that information easy to pan through the orchestration deduplication. It is very impressive given that we have hundreds of devices that send event logs through."
"The interface is good."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is how it monitors the real network. That is its leading security feature."
"I think the QDI is very good."
"The solution can scale."
"Providing real-time visibility for threat detection and prioritization - QRadar SIEM provides contextual and actionable surveillance across the entire IT infrastructure."
"The threat protection network is the most valuable feature, because when you get an offense, you can actually trace it back to where it originated from, how it originated, and why."
"I think this is a good product for enterprises because of the performance and out-of-the-box rules and use cases. If they want to reach the maturity level early, they can use these out-of-the-box rules and use cases. That will help them a lot."
"It would also be nice if we had more insight into our own usage of Datadog (agents and custom metrics). They provide a usage page which does help, but it is not in real-time."
"The pricing is a bit confusing."
"It could probably be a little bit of a better user experience."
"Lately, chat support has a longer waiting time."
"I found the solution to be stable, I did not experience any bugs or glitches. However, some of the managing team did."
"It would be nice to be able to graph metrics by excluding certain tags (like you can do in monitors)."
"I sometimes log in and see items changed, either in the UI or a feature enabled. To see it for the first time without proper communication can sometimes come as a shock."
"The product could be improved by providing remote control to agents, enabling them to execute automation and collections without requiring another automation tool or integration."
"Technical support really needs to be improved. Right now, they aren't where they need to be at all."
"The product does not have a team for investigating malware."
"Whenever we are upgrading or installing any type of patch, at that time we have some delays."
"It's resource-intensive."
"There are areas in IBM Security QRadar that could benefit from improvement. Its ability to customize knowledge for specific purposes could be enhanced. Also, it lacks clarity in presenting details. It is also difficult to see the reports."
"The solution is expensive compared to other products."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"In a future release, the solution could provide malware analysis."
Datadog is ranked 3rd in Log Management with 137 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Google Chronicle Suite. See our Datadog vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.
