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

Exabeam vs NetWitness Platform 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

Exabeam
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (1st), Security Incident Response (4th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (9th), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (11th), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (9th)
NetWitness Platform
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
33rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (34th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) category, the mindshare of Exabeam is 1.7%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetWitness Platform is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Exabeam1.7%
NetWitness Platform0.9%
Other97.4%
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
 

Featured Reviews

DH
Solution Architect at CTC
Improved threat detection has provided clear user risk insights and streamlined incident response
Exabeam's UEBA is the most valuable feature that I have found so far. Exabeam's UEBA displays the type of description that it could show in a console regarding one particular user, the rating that it shows, and how vulnerable the user is, which is very good. Exabeam's automation for incident response is very good. The machine learning capabilities of Exabeam are also good.
MOTASHIM Al Razi - PeerSpot reviewer
CISO at One Bank Limited
It is a stable solution, but they should make the user interface easier to understand
The solution's initial setup takes work. We have to organize multiple paths and many features. The deployment process takes less than a week. But it takes a month to complete if we want to make the solution smarter by integrating it with various devices. I rate the process as a six out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The setup is not difficult. It was easy."
"It is user-friendly and quite simple to use."
"The solution's initial setup process is easy."
"The user interface and the timelines they use are the most valuable features. The price model is very simple so that one can understand it easily and there are no surprises within it."
"The advanced analytics has a really great overview of user behavior."
"The way it can connect with AWS is very useful, and the integrations are pretty good."
"Exabeam's UEBA displays the type of description that it could show in a console regarding one particular user, the rating that it shows, and how vulnerable the user is, which is very good."
"The Exabeam SIEM has a user friendly UI interface."
"Alerting Module: It provides real-time event processing language on all the logs/packets stream for advanced alerting, i.e., using SQL LIKE statements."
"The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult."
"I can have enterprise security, email security, next generation firewall security log, HIDS and NIDS logs, etc. all on the same dashboard. It makes it easy to pinpoint or correlate our server to this. I can find out if there is lateral movement. This is the biggest advantage of this solution."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to write rules and triggers for network communication, and then being able to investigate based on that."
"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."
"Performance and reporting are very good."
"Offers a good wireless feature."
"Possibility to investigate incidents based on logs and raw packets, such as extracting files sent over the network"
 

Cons

"The organzation is rigid and not flexible in the way they operate"
"I believe if it were more flexible it would be a better product."
"We had a large volume right from the beginning and they weren't quite prepared for that. That's something that they should think about when it comes to customers that have a large volume to start off with."
"Updating the new release of Exabeam Fusion SIEM takes time and slows our performance."
"One area that needs improvement is interacting with Exabeam's API. There was a headache regarding the API; the documentation wasn't clear, and the syntax wasn't very precise."
"One area for the solution's improvement is integration capabilities, particularly out-of-the-box integration which sometimes requires additional professional services."
"The solution's reporting and dashboarding could be improved."
"Exabeam needs to improve its adaptive nature towards rules and its capability to understand the entire client environment faster."
"RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets can improve the threat level aspect, it is lacking compared to other solutions. Whenever any hacking activity or any other threat factor occurred they used to provide the coverages very fast when comparing RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets. I heard the other three solutions, from a discussion with my team members who had experience in other solutions, they used to say that. Whenever any issues happened across the globe RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets are a little bit slow improving those detection mechanisms."
"It should have a monitoring feature. It would help us analyze the current state of attacks faster from a single platform."
"Log aggregation is an issue with this solution because there are a huge number of alerts in a single instance."
"The documentation is not as structured as I would like, personally, and I think that it can be improved and made much more user-friendly."
"We have encountered issues with unresolved crashes."
"The log system is a bit complex and has room for improvement."
"Health monitoring of the event sources and devices."
"The multi-tenant capabilities are lagging compared to IBM QRadar."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Exabeam is not a cheap solution."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is an annual license required to use Exabeam Fusion SIEM. The price of the solution should be reduced."
"Exabeam Fusion SIEM's pricing is reasonable."
"The platform is not extremely expensive compared to its direct competitors; I would rate its pricing around six out of ten."
"They have a great model for pricing that can be based either on user count or gigabits per day."
"The product is expensive."
"Our license is for one year."
"It is cheap."
"The product price was reasonable for my region and the market."
"We have a perpetual license, so the total cost of ownership is not very expensive. It's a good investment."
"This is a pricey solution; it's not cheap."
"The tool is very expensive, so I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. The solution has an annual subscription."
"In comparison to other SIEM solutions such as Splunk, NetWitness is less costly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
884,656 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Manager, Enterprise Risk Consulting at a tech company with 1,001-5,000 employees
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
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Marketing Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

What are the biggest differences between Securonix UEBA, Exabeam, and IBM QRadar?
It mostly depends on your use-cases and environment. Exabeam and Securonix have a stronger UEBA feature set, friendlier GUI and are not licensed based on capacity (amount of logs and information in...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Exabeam Fusion SIEM?
I do not have much information about the pricing. However, I am aware that Exabeam is cheaper than Palo Alto based on discussions in meetings.
What needs improvement with Exabeam Fusion SIEM?
Exabeam's integration capabilities are not good, as Exabeam has a very limited number of integrations and no out-of-box integration, which is an area where Exabeam should improve. I have noticed th...
What do you like most about NetWitness Platform?
The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetWitness Platform?
The pricing is comparable to others, and I consider the cost to be intermediate. Specific cost details are unknown to me.
What needs improvement with NetWitness Platform?
There is currently no need for improvement in the SIEM ( /categories/security-information-and-event-management-siem ), though there could be potential enhancements by integrating with AI.
 

Also Known As

No data available
RSA Security Analytics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hulu, ADP, Safeway, BBCN Bank
Los Angeles World Airports, Reply
Find out what your peers are saying about Exabeam vs. NetWitness Platform and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,656 professionals have used our research since 2012.