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

IBM Security QRadar vs Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Security QRadar
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
4th
Ranking in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
204
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (6th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (18th), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (4th), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (10th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (14th)
Oracle Security Monitoring ...
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
49th
Ranking in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
21st
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) category, the mindshare of IBM Security QRadar is 9.5%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
 

Featured Reviews

Muzzamil Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 1, 2024
Is easy to integrate and doesn't require maintenance
One major drawback we are facing is in the area of IBM Security QRadar integration with flat file databases. IBM Security QRadar does not support flat file database integration. We are currently facing an issue with respect to the database, which you normally call a NoSQL database. There is no direct integration mechanism available with IBM Security QRadar. We have to approach IBM and generate a ticket so that they can develop a custom method for the integration. In database integration, we are facing issues with IBM Security QRadar. The solution does not support the integration of flat file databases. Certain organizations have flat file databases. IBM does not support direct integration with some databases. We had to create a plug, and we requested IBM to develop a parser, but it is taking IBM a couple of months to develop it. I think a flat-file database should be supported directly instead of developing a parser plugin. There should be a more refined threat intelligence platform, and cross-integration should be possible with locally available threat intelligence platforms.
IB
Jul 29, 2021
Easy to install, highly secure standards, and reliable
We use Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service for security information, event management, and analytics. This has helped eliminate any external network attacks The security level that they are maintaining with the pre-authentication keys is very good. They are following the global…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The scalability is very good. It's not a problem."
"The flexibility is good in terms of pulling log files."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is how it monitors the real network. That is its leading security feature."
"The best feature of IBM QRadar is visualization which shows you when there's a spike in the system, and this makes you realize that there's something wrong with the log."
"I have found IBM QRadar to be stable."
"This console gives you the entire view, which makes life easier and allows you to take precautionary measures."
"IBM QRadar is easy to scale, it doesn't affect the environment. In our office, we have around 40 - 50 users, but our clients have more users on their networks. Our organization has staff in the software department that manages IBM QRadar for us."
"Most of the features are good. It is an excellent solution."
"The security level that they are maintaining with the pre-authentication keys is very good."
 

Cons

"They should provide more manual examples online so that I can learn it myself."
"The architecture could be improved. I got stuck for a long time trying to understand the architecture, as it is quite challenging."
"The solution lacks vendor support."
"The product needs to improve its GUI."
"I'd like them to improve the offense. When QRadar detects something, it creates what it calls offenses. So, it has a rudimentary ticketing system inside of it. This is the same interface that was there when I started using it 12 years ago. It just has not been improved. They do allow integration with IBM Resilient, but IBM Resilient is grotesquely expensive. The most effective integration that IBM offers today is with IBM Resilient, which is an instant response platform. It is a very good platform, but it is very expensive. They really should do something with the offense handling because it is very difficult to scale, and it has limitations. The maximum number of offenses that it can carry is 16K. After 16K, you have to flush your offenses out. So, it is all or nothing. You lose all your offenses up until that point in time, and you don't have any history within the offense list of older events. If you're dealing with multiple customers, this becomes problematic. That's why you need to use another product to do the actual ticketing. If you wanted the ticket existence, you would normally interface with ServiceNow, SolarWinds, or some other product like that."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"I think that the search speed of this solution could be improved."
"IMB should reduce the pricing, or reduce some of the features for a more economical solution for the customer."
"The solution could improve by providing better documentation for beginners to learn, such as videos or other tutorials."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I feel that the price is reasonable but compared to other products that are on the market, such as an offering by Microsoft, it is more expensive."
"The price could be better. I bought a subscription for three years."
"It is a perpetual license that we have for the event collector. The licensing is done based on the number of events and flows that you receive on this particular device. These are perpetual licenses, which means once you purchase them, they don't expire, which means that the support to IBM is definitely renewed after every one year. We have an enterprise agreement with IBM, which puts the cost in a totally different category as compared to someone who is not an IBM partner and is approaching IBM for this solution. We were able to get massive discounts. To give you an idea, we recently purchased 30,000 event licenses, and it costs around $480,000. It is definitely not a cheap product. We have licenses for about 270,000 events per second and 3 million flows per second. All the appliances and their events and flows are basically clubbed together and charged or rather calculated through a single source. The console receives all the details from all the event processes that we have globally. So, the license that we have is a single license for 270,000 events per second and 3 million flows per second, but that can be managed centrally. I was only part of the secondary purchase, which was 30,000 events per second for about $480,000. You can calculate how much we paid for 270,000 events. Reducing its price would be a compromise. We have already used a lower-priced product in the form of NNT, but we had to get rid of it because it was not doing the job that we actually wanted to do. You get what you pay for."
"This price is a little high, so it's an expensive product."
"IBM's Qradar is not for small companie. Unfortunately, it would be 'overkill' to place it plainly. The pricing would be too much."
"The product is expensive. We have purchased the perpetual license, but we pay for the support."
"The maintenance costs are high."
"The pricing is good."
"The solution is not expensive for the data security measure you receive, it is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Jun 28, 2015
Qradar vs. ArcSight
Continuing with the SIEM posts we have done at Infosecnirvana, this post is a Head to head comparison of the two Industry leading SIEM products in the market – HP ArcSight and IBM QRadar Both the products have consistently been in the Gartner Leaders Quadrant. Both HP and IBM took over niche SIEM…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
22%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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 SOC product do you recommend?
For tools I’d recommend: -SIEM- LogRhythm -SOAR- Palo Alto XSOAR Doing commercial w/o both (or at least an XDR) is asking to miss details that are critical, and ending up a statistic. Also, rememb...
What do you like most about IBM QRadar?
The event collector, flow collector, PCAP and SOAR are valuable.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

IBM QRadar, QRadar SIEM, QRadar UBA, QRadar on Cloud, QRadar, IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics, IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson
SMA Cloud Service
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Clients across multiple industries, such as energy, financial, retail, healthcare, government, communications, and education use QRadar.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Splunk, Microsoft, Wazuh and others in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM). Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.