Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
IBM Security QRadar Logo

Top 10 IBM Security QRadar Alternatives

Vendor: IBM
4.0 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
Leave a review

Top IBM Security QRadar Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to IBM Security QRadar based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, Wazuh, and Fortinet FortiEDR. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. IBM Security QRadar surpasses its competitors by offering robust threat detection and AI-driven insights that streamline security operations, enabling organizations to efficiently identify and respond to potential threats with precision and reliability.

IBM Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with IBM, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
IBM Security QRadar Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalability and robust integrations, ideal for large and intricate deployments needing comprehensive SIEM features. In comparison, CrowdStrike Falcon provides agile, cloud-native security with strong detection and rapid deployment, appealing to organizations valuing simplified, multi-cloud adaptability.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs while offering robust security features, whereas CrowdStrike Falcon provides a cost-effective setup option with efficient threat detection capabilities, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment and functionality.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs while offering robust security features, whereas CrowdStrike Falcon provides a cost-effective setup option with efficient threat detection capabilities, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment and functionality.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Wazuh
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Wazuh
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar is ideal for large enterprises with its comprehensive features and scalability. In comparison, Wazuh, being open source, offers cost-effectiveness and flexibility, attracting smaller organizations focused on compliance and cloud-native infrastructure.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Wazuh Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Wazuh, which offers a more budget-friendly option for organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Wazuh, which offers a more budget-friendly option for organizations.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiEDR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiEDR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management and data correlation, appealing to enterprises with needs for comprehensive security analytics. In comparison, Fortinet FortiEDR focuses on real-time threat prevention and forensic details, ideal for businesses prioritizing endpoint security and streamlined threat management.
Download Fortinet FortiEDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Fortinet FortiEDR, which is known for its lower initial investment. While QRadar offers extensive capabilities, FortiEDR provides a cost-effective solution with efficient setup requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Fortinet FortiEDR, which is known for its lower initial investment. While QRadar offers extensive capabilities, FortiEDR provides a cost-effective solution with efficient setup requirements.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Dynatrace
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Dynatrace
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in security monitoring, handling large deployments with effective SIEM and UBA features, making it ideal for enterprises. In comparison, Dynatrace targets performance-focused environments, offering AI-driven application performance and user experience insights. Each product caters to specific priorities and deployment models.
Download Dynatrace vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a lower initial setup cost compared to Dynatrace, which requires a higher investment to implement. QRadar's affordability in setup contrasts significantly with Dynatrace's expense, highlighting a key cost difference between the solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a lower initial setup cost compared to Dynatrace, which requires a higher investment to implement. QRadar's affordability in setup contrasts significantly with Dynatrace's expense, highlighting a key cost difference between the solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Datadog
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Datadog
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalability and compliance monitoring, ideal for enterprises needing robust security intelligence. In comparison, Datadog provides seamless integrations and real-time analytics, benefiting cloud-centric environments. Tech buyers might choose QRadar for security focus, whereas Datadog offers optimized application monitoring.
Download Datadog vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a higher setup cost but offers a comprehensive security suite, while Datadog provides a lower initial investment with scalable monitoring options.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a higher setup cost but offers a comprehensive security suite, while Datadog provides a lower initial investment with scalable monitoring options.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Microsoft Sentinel
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Microsoft Sentinel
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers robust on-premise security features with strengths in data accuracy and real-time alerting. In comparison, Microsoft Sentinel excels in cloud-native scalability and seamless integration within Microsoft ecosystems, appealing to businesses prioritizing cloud deployments and automated responses.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Microsoft Sentinel Report
IBM Security QRadar is noted for its higher initial setup cost, while Microsoft Sentinel offers a lower initial setup expense, highlighting a significant cost discrepancy between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar is noted for its higher initial setup cost, while Microsoft Sentinel offers a lower initial setup expense, highlighting a significant cost discrepancy between the two solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk Enterprise Security
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar emphasizes log management and vulnerability detection, appealing to enterprises valuing comprehensive security management. In comparison, Splunk Enterprise Security offers flexibility and powerful analytics, suitable for organizations seeking advanced data insights and adaptable deployment options, despite its higher cost.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk Enterprise Security Report
IBM Security QRadar features a more affordable setup cost compared to Splunk Enterprise Security, which generally requires higher initial investment. The pricing reflects the differences in their targeted user base and deployment flexibility.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar features a more affordable setup cost compared to Splunk Enterprise Security, which generally requires higher initial investment. The pricing reflects the differences in their targeted user base and deployment flexibility.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Darktrace
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Darktrace
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers superior log extraction and compliance monitoring. In comparison, Darktrace excels with AI-driven anomaly detection and minimal human intervention. QRadar's scalability suits diverse log sources, while Darktrace excels in rapid deployment and efficient threat detection via connected devices.
Download Darktrace vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar offers a lower initial setup cost compared to Darktrace, which demands a higher investment for initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar offers a lower initial setup cost compared to Darktrace, which demands a higher investment for initial deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
SentinelOne Singularity Complete
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalability and comprehensive data integration, appealing to those needing extensive logging and threat detection. In comparison, SentinelOne Singularity Complete attracts with advanced endpoint protection, real-time threat mitigation, and flexible deployment options suitable for diverse environments.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. SentinelOne Singularity Complete Report
IBM Security QRadar involves higher initial setup costs compared to the cost-efficient setup of SentinelOne Singularity Complete. QRadar offers a comprehensive SIEM solution, while SentinelOne focuses more on endpoint security.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves higher initial setup costs compared to the cost-efficient setup of SentinelOne Singularity Complete. QRadar offers a comprehensive SIEM solution, while SentinelOne focuses more on endpoint security.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Microsoft Defender XDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers extensive log management, SIEM capabilities, and third-party integration but requires enhanced dashboards and better usability. In comparison, Microsoft Defender XDR emphasizes seamless integration within Microsoft environments, needing improvements in onboarding and threat intelligence accuracy.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Microsoft Defender XDR Report
IBM Security QRadar has a substantial setup cost, while Microsoft Defender XDR offers a more budget-friendly implementation. QRadar's advanced capabilities justify its setup expenses, contrasting with Defender XDR's attractive cost-efficiency for businesses prioritizing budget constraints.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a substantial setup cost, while Microsoft Defender XDR offers a more budget-friendly implementation. QRadar's advanced capabilities justify its setup expenses, contrasting with Defender XDR's attractive cost-efficiency for businesses prioritizing budget constraints.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalable SIEM and integration, ideal for large enterprises needing comprehensive analytics. In comparison, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks offers advanced threat detection with seamless ecosystem integration, appealing to those prioritizing cloud flexibility and robust security, despite high costs.
Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar offers a lower initial setup cost, whereas Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks provides an advanced feature set at a higher price point, highlighting a key distinction in financial investment and functionality.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar offers a lower initial setup cost, whereas Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks provides an advanced feature set at a higher price point, highlighting a key distinction in financial investment and functionality.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Elastic Security
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Elastic Security
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar provides strong threat intelligence and a broad feature set, including network anomaly detection, but faces criticism for its high resource demands. In comparison, Elastic Security, an open-source solution, is valued for its cost-effectiveness and flexibility, though it needs better scalability solutions.
Download Elastic Security vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar setup cost is higher due to its comprehensive feature set, while Elastic Security offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it more accessible for smaller organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar setup cost is higher due to its comprehensive feature set, while Elastic Security offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it more accessible for smaller organizations.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in real-time data correlation and offers robust user behavior analytics. In comparison, Trellix Endpoint Security provides strong threat protection with customization capabilities. QRadar needs better device integration, while Trellix requires improved resource management and authentication tool integration.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Report
IBM Security QRadar has higher initial setup costs, offering robust features tailored for enterprise security, while Trellix Endpoint Security Platform presents a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to organizations prioritizing cost-effectiveness with reliable endpoint protection.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has higher initial setup costs, offering robust features tailored for enterprise security, while Trellix Endpoint Security Platform presents a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to organizations prioritizing cost-effectiveness with reliable endpoint protection.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Grafana Loki
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Grafana Loki
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers extensive monitoring with features like SIEM and vulnerability management for large enterprises. In comparison, Grafana Loki provides effective log storage and visualization for smaller teams prioritizing cost-effective analysis, suited for budget-conscious users preferring lightweight, open-source solutions.
Download Grafana Loki vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically has a higher setup cost reflecting its robust features, while Grafana Loki offers a more affordable initial setup, which appeals to users seeking cost-effective solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically has a higher setup cost reflecting its robust features, while Grafana Loki offers a more affordable initial setup, which appeals to users seeking cost-effective solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Tanium
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Tanium
3.8 out of 5
IBM QRadar offers comprehensive threat analysis by integrating with Watson, accommodating various organizational sizes with scalability. In comparison, Tanium shines in instant discovery and device management but struggles with scalability and user interface. QRadar's extensive detection capabilities compete with Tanium's robust functionalities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Tanium Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a significant initial setup cost, while Tanium offers a more affordable setup, highlighting a clear cost disparity between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a significant initial setup cost, while Tanium offers a more affordable setup, highlighting a clear cost disparity between the two solutions.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Graylog
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Graylog
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers advanced threat detection and scalability for large enterprises. In comparison, Graylog is ideal for those seeking an open-source solution with cost-effectiveness and extensive logging features, appealing to smaller setups or organizations with tighter budgets.
Download Graylog vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically involves a higher setup cost due to its advanced integration capabilities, while Graylog offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to businesses with limited resources seeking straightforward log management.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically involves a higher setup cost due to its advanced integration capabilities, while Graylog offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to businesses with limited resources seeking straightforward log management.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Security Onion
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Security Onion
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar attracts larger enterprises with its advanced analytics and robust support. In comparison, Security Onion's open-source framework offers cost-effective solutions with a strong community. IBM's structured deployment contrasts Security Onion's straightforward setup, appealing to different organizational needs.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Security Onion Report
IBM Security QRadar's setup cost is reflected in its comprehensive, scalable features, whereas Security Onion's lower setup cost aligns with its open-source nature and community-driven support.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar's setup cost is reflected in its comprehensive, scalable features, whereas Security Onion's lower setup cost aligns with its open-source nature and community-driven support.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Huntress Managed EDR
4.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management, advanced threat intelligence, and scalability, catering to larger enterprises with detailed compliance needs. In comparison, Huntress Managed EDR provides ease of use and automatic threat remediation, suiting SMBs with its flexible pricing and user-friendly deployment.
Download Huntress Managed EDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a significant setup cost, while Huntress Managed EDR offers a more cost-effective setup solution.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a significant setup cost, while Huntress Managed EDR offers a more cost-effective setup solution.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AWS Security Hub
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AWS Security Hub
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive security monitoring with robust SIEM capabilities and automation, suited for larger enterprises. In comparison, AWS Security Hub excels with AWS-native integration and flexible pricing, ideal for cloud-centric environments.
Download AWS Security Hub vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs due to its extensive feature set, whereas AWS Security Hub offers a more cost-effective initial setup appealing to those prioritizing budget efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs due to its extensive feature set, whereas AWS Security Hub offers a more cost-effective initial setup appealing to those prioritizing budget efficiency.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Trend Vision One
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Trend Vision One
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log extraction and scalability with robust integration features and clear dashboards. In comparison, Trend Vision One emphasizes centralized visibility, strong endpoint protection, and cost-effective licensing suitable for comprehensive security needs, with particular strength in attack surface risk management.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Trend Vision One Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a complex setup process, while Trend Vision One offers simpler setup at a lower cost, highlighting a key differentiation in their installation experiences.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a complex setup process, while Trend Vision One offers simpler setup at a lower cost, highlighting a key differentiation in their installation experiences.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management and data correlation for large enterprises. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR emphasizes automation and integration with a vast plugin library. A tech buyer might prefer QRadar for scalability or XSOAR for integration capabilities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Report
IBM Security QRadar is known for moderate setup costs, while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is praised for its cost-effectiveness and ease of deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar is known for moderate setup costs, while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is praised for its cost-effectiveness and ease of deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Vectra AI
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Vectra AI
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in integration and log management, making it ideal for large enterprises needing comprehensive threat coverage. In comparison, Vectra AI's focus on AI-driven insights and network visibility aids organizations seeking advanced threat detection with a reduced false positive rate.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Vectra AI Report
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs, while Vectra AI offers a more cost-effective setup process, making them distinct in their initial investment requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs, while Vectra AI offers a more cost-effective setup process, making them distinct in their initial investment requirements.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers robust threat detection with Watson integration and user behavior analytics. In comparison, CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR excels in managed detection and response with strong AI features. QRadar suits large organizations, while Falcon offers streamlined deployment and strong endpoint protection.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar involves a higher setup cost, whereas CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR offers more competitive pricing.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar involves a higher setup cost, whereas CrowdStrike Falcon Complete MDR offers more competitive pricing.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Intercept X Endpoint
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar provides comprehensive security monitoring with flexibility for scalability and complex deployments. In comparison, Intercept X Endpoint targets endpoint security with advanced features like deep learning. Tech buyers might choose QRadar for extensive capabilities, whereas Intercept X offers streamlined deployment and effective threat management.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Intercept X Endpoint Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, focusing on enterprise-level solutions, while Intercept X Endpoint offers more affordable setup options, catering to smaller businesses with straightforward deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, focusing on enterprise-level solutions, while Intercept X Endpoint offers more affordable setup options, catering to smaller businesses with straightforward deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cortex XSIAM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cortex XSIAM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalability and cognitive analysis with Watson, making it ideal for enterprises needing comprehensive monitoring and advanced analytics. In comparison, Cortex XSIAM uses AI for holistic threat detection and automation, appealing to buyers prioritizing machine learning and cloud integration.
Download Cortex XSIAM vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, whereas Cortex XSIAM offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, whereas Cortex XSIAM offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
LogRhythm SIEM
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
LogRhythm SIEM
4.2 out of 5
QRadar excels with data extraction and scalability, ideal for larger enterprises. In comparison, LogRhythm provides easy log aggregation and full-spectrum analytics for threat detection, appealing with its usability and customization, cost-efficiency, and ROI, especially for medium to large businesses.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. LogRhythm SIEM Report
IBM Security QRadar has a straightforward setup cost that is influenced by deployment options, while LogRhythm SIEM often involves more complex initial configuration expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a straightforward setup cost that is influenced by deployment options, while LogRhythm SIEM often involves more complex initial configuration expenses.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Rapid7 InsightIDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Rapid7 InsightIDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers deep security analysis and scalability, ideal for enterprises seeking comprehensive compliance support. In comparison, Rapid7 InsightIDR focuses on user behavior analytics and quick threat detection, appealing to organizations needing rapid deployment and cost-effective endpoint management.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Rapid7 InsightIDR Report
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs compared to Rapid7 InsightIDR, offering a cost-efficient alternative for businesses seeking quicker deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs compared to Rapid7 InsightIDR, offering a cost-efficient alternative for businesses seeking quicker deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cynet
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cynet
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in threat detection with robust SIEM features and scalability, ideal for large enterprises, despite its complexity and cost. In comparison, Cynet offers comprehensive endpoint and network protection at a competitive price, suitable for varying business sizes.
Download Cynet vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Cynet offers a more budget-friendly option. QRadar's advanced features contribute to its cost, contrasting with Cynet's simpler implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Cynet offers a more budget-friendly option. QRadar's advanced features contribute to its cost, contrasting with Cynet's simpler implementation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Bitdefender GravityZone EDR
4.2 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar specializes in comprehensive log management and analytics, ideal for large environments with its scalability. In comparison, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers robust anti-malware and ransomware protection, appealing to budget-conscious businesses with its competitive pricing and flexible deployment options.
Download Bitdefender GravityZone EDR vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs due to its extensive features, while Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it suitable for businesses prioritizing cost-efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar incurs higher setup costs due to its extensive features, while Bitdefender GravityZone EDR offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it suitable for businesses prioritizing cost-efficiency.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response
4.6 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management and SIEM capabilities. In comparison, Arctic Wolf offers managed detection with a concierge security team. QRadar fits enterprises needing extensive features, while Arctic Wolf suits companies requiring clear pricing and 24/7 outsourced monitoring.
Download Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant initial setup cost, while Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response offers a more cost-effective setup option. A key difference is QRadar's higher cost against Arctic Wolf, which could impact budget allocation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant initial setup cost, while Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response offers a more cost-effective setup option. A key difference is QRadar's higher cost against Arctic Wolf, which could impact budget allocation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiSIEM
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiSIEM
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalability and threat intelligence integration for complex enterprise needs, with flexible deployment and strong customer service. In comparison, Fortinet FortiSIEM emphasizes cost-effective monitoring and ease of use, with strengths in anomaly detection and behavior analytics.
Download Fortinet FortiSIEM vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar setup costs are generally higher, reflecting its comprehensive security features, while Fortinet FortiSIEM offers a more cost-effective setup, providing a budget-friendly option for smaller organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar setup costs are generally higher, reflecting its comprehensive security features, while Fortinet FortiSIEM offers a more cost-effective setup, providing a budget-friendly option for smaller organizations.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AlienVault OSSIM
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
AlienVault OSSIM
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in comprehensive security and scalability for larger enterprises. In comparison, AlienVault OSSIM offers cost-effectiveness and integration simplicity for smaller organizations, despite lacking the feature set and scalability needed for complex environments.
Download AlienVault OSSIM vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher initial setup costs due to its robust infrastructure needs, whereas AlienVault OSSIM offers a more cost-effective setup, making it suitable for budget-conscious organizations seeking a security solution.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher initial setup costs due to its robust infrastructure needs, whereas AlienVault OSSIM offers a more cost-effective setup, making it suitable for budget-conscious organizations seeking a security solution.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk SOAR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk SOAR
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers robust security management and custom parsing, ideal for large enterprises with its event-based pricing. In comparison, Splunk SOAR is suitable for organizations valuing flexible cloud solutions, offering customizable playbooks and strong automation capabilities for evolving needs.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk SOAR Report
IBM Security QRadar installation is costlier compared to Splunk SOAR, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. IBM's higher setup cost may justify its advanced features and capabilities, while Splunk SOAR attracts cost-conscious users with its economical deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar installation is costlier compared to Splunk SOAR, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. IBM's higher setup cost may justify its advanced features and capabilities, while Splunk SOAR attracts cost-conscious users with its economical deployment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
syslog-ng
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
syslog-ng
4.4 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in advanced threat detection and comprehensive cybersecurity insights. In comparison, syslog-ng focuses on streamlined log management. QRadar suits large organizations needing detailed security operations, while syslog-ng appeals to those prioritizing cost-effective log collection and faster deployment.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. syslog-ng Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to syslog-ng, which offers a more affordable initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to syslog-ng, which offers a more affordable initial implementation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Fortinet FortiAnalyzer
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar, known for robust features, provides comprehensive security monitoring with a higher price point based on events per second and service range. In comparison, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer offers network visibility and log management as a cost-effective option, especially for mid-sized enterprises using Fortinet products.
Download Fortinet FortiAnalyzer vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Fortinet FortiAnalyzer. However, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is more cost-effective in its initial pricing, catering to those looking for a budget-friendly alternative.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Fortinet FortiAnalyzer. However, Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is more cost-effective in its initial pricing, catering to those looking for a budget-friendly alternative.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Google Chronicle Suite
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar appeals with robust support and pricing advantages, offering comprehensive feature integration. In comparison, Google Chronicle Suite captivates those valuing cloud-native architecture and superior scalability, attracting tech buyers focused on innovative, resource-efficient solutions for long-term cloud environments.
Download Google Chronicle Suite vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher initial setup cost, while Google Chronicle Suite offers a more budget-friendly installation process. QRadar's setup complexity contrasts with the simplified deployment of Chronicle, highlighting key differences in implementation approaches.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher initial setup cost, while Google Chronicle Suite offers a more budget-friendly installation process. QRadar's setup complexity contrasts with the simplified deployment of Chronicle, highlighting key differences in implementation approaches.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers scalable architecture and robust log management, ideal for extensive security environments. In comparison, Cybereason excels in intuitive endpoint detection, appealing to those needing agile cloud-based solutions. QRadar's comprehensive SIEM features attract enterprise users, while Cybereason's pricing suits smaller, flexible deployments.
Download Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response offers a more economical initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost, while Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response offers a more economical initial investment.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sophos MDR
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sophos MDR
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar focuses on robust SIEM capabilities with scalable features, while Sophos MDR emphasizes endpoint protection and threat detection. In comparison, QRadar's real-time alerting excels, whereas Sophos offers centralized management and cost-efficiency, making each appealing to different security priorities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Sophos MDR Report
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs, while Sophos MDR offers a more economical initial setup, highlighting a key cost difference.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs, while Sophos MDR offers a more economical initial setup, highlighting a key cost difference.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Securonix Next-Gen SIEM
4.3 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels with versatile log management and threat intelligence integration, appealing for its diverse deployment options. In comparison, Securonix Next-Gen SIEM draws attention with advanced analytics and cloud readiness, ideal for tech buyers prioritizing scalability and machine learning capabilities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Securonix Next-Gen SIEM Report
IBM Security QRadar often requires a higher initial setup cost due to its comprehensive deployment, while Securonix Next-Gen SIEM tends to offer a more moderate setup effort.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar often requires a higher initial setup cost due to its comprehensive deployment, while Securonix Next-Gen SIEM tends to offer a more moderate setup effort.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Amazon OpenSearch Service
3.6 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive security intelligence and compliance monitoring with scalable deployments, appealing to large enterprises. In comparison, Amazon OpenSearch Service provides fast search results and customizable dashboards, beneficial for organizations prioritizing data visualization and managed services despite higher costs.
Download Amazon OpenSearch Service vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs due to its extensive deployment and configuration needs, while Amazon OpenSearch Service offers a more cost-effective setup, benefiting from its cloud-native infrastructure and streamlined deployment process.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically incurs higher setup costs due to its extensive deployment and configuration needs, while Amazon OpenSearch Service offers a more cost-effective setup, benefiting from its cloud-native infrastructure and streamlined deployment process.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Splunk User Behavior Analytics
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar is robust in log management and security intelligence capabilities, suitable for seamless integration. In comparison, Splunk User Behavior Analytics focuses on advanced data analytics and user-friendly dashboards. A tech buyer might prefer QRadar for compliance needs or Splunk for behavioral insights.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk User Behavior Analytics Report
IBM Security QRadar has a high initial setup cost, while Splunk User Behavior Analytics offers a more accessible setup fee.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a high initial setup cost, while Splunk User Behavior Analytics offers a more accessible setup fee.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sentinel
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Sentinel
3.8 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels with raw log extraction and comprehensive security rules. In comparison, Sentinel offers efficient threat detection through Microsoft integration. QRadar's feature cost is justified for large enterprises, while Sentinel's cost-efficiency appeals to businesses in Microsoft ecosystems.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Sentinel Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Sentinel, which offers a more cost-effective setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher setup cost compared to Sentinel, which offers a more cost-effective setup option.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Exabeam
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Exabeam
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels with broad log management and vulnerability scanning, while Exabeam's advanced analytics and machine learning set it apart. In comparison, QRadar offers a traditional SIEM approach, whereas Exabeam provides innovative automation ideal for different deployment needs.
Download Exabeam vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar typically involves a higher upfront setup cost, whereas Exabeam offers a more cost-effective setup, which may appeal to budget-conscious organizations. The notable difference lies in initial expenditure.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically involves a higher upfront setup cost, whereas Exabeam offers a more cost-effective setup, which may appeal to budget-conscious organizations. The notable difference lies in initial expenditure.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar is ideal for large environments requiring comprehensive threat intelligence and advanced analytics. In comparison, SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server excels in log management and ease of use, catering to smaller setups needing quick deployment and cost-effective log monitoring.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server Report
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant setup investment, while SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server offers a more budget-friendly setup cost.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar requires a significant setup investment, while SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server offers a more budget-friendly setup cost.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
ManageEngine Log360
3.7 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in comprehensive security capabilities with advanced threat detection and user behavior analytics. In comparison, ManageEngine Log360 offers modular customization and a cost-effective approach with agentless monitoring, making it suitable for budget-conscious hybrid environments seeking robust compliance reporting.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. ManageEngine Log360 Report
IBM Security QRadar setup costs are higher, reflecting its advanced features, while ManageEngine Log360 offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar setup costs are higher, reflecting its advanced features, while ManageEngine Log360 offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR
3.9 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in scalability and ease of deployment, ideal for large environments. In comparison, Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR integrates machine learning for advanced threat detection, appealing to those needing efficient alert response and threat isolation capabilities.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR Report
IBM Security QRadar generally involves higher initial setup costs, while Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR tends to offer more budget-friendly deployment options, making it potentially more attractive for cost-sensitive organizations.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar generally involves higher initial setup costs, while Secureworks Taegis Managed XDR / MDR tends to offer more budget-friendly deployment options, making it potentially more attractive for cost-sensitive organizations.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Coralogix
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Coralogix
4.1 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in log management, SIEM, and integration, appealing to large enterprises with extensive security needs. In comparison, Coralogix focuses on user-friendly log analysis with cloud-based deployment, ideal for startups aiming for cost-effective scalability.
Download Coralogix vs. IBM Security QRadar Report
IBM Security QRadar has a higher initial setup cost, while Coralogix offers a more budget-friendly alternative with lower setup expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar has a higher initial setup cost, while Coralogix offers a more budget-friendly alternative with lower setup expenses.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Red Canary
4.5 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar Logo
Red Canary
4.5 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar offers comprehensive threat detection with strong integration capabilities, appealing to those prioritizing support. In comparison, Red Canary's automated threat responses and real-time alerting provide flexibility, attracting buyers favoring ease of deployment and cost-effective threat management.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. Red Canary Report
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher setup costs compared to Red Canary, which is known for its more straightforward and economical implementation, highlighting a key difference in initial investment for potential users.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar typically involves higher setup costs compared to Red Canary, which is known for its more straightforward and economical implementation, highlighting a key difference in initial investment for potential users.
IBM Security QRadar Logo
IBM Security QRadar Logo
One Identity Safeguard
4.0 out of 5
IBM Security QRadar excels in robust security monitoring and comprehensive threat detection, ideal for large enterprises seeking advanced SIEM capabilities. In comparison, One Identity Safeguard provides secure session management with flexible authentication, appealing to organizations prioritizing secure privileged access and session handling.
Download IBM Security QRadar vs. One Identity Safeguard Report
IBM Security QRadar's setup costs offer competitive initial pricing, while One Identity Safeguard's setup costs present a higher upfront investment.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Security QRadar's setup costs offer competitive initial pricing, while One Identity Safeguard's setup costs present a higher upfront investment.

Related categories

Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
Log Management
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)