IBM Security QRadar Reviews

QRadar improved risk assessment and vulnerability, plus it has reduced some staff. It has also improved the training abilities of the people who use it, e.g., IR teams. It is the core of our entire SOX. Therefore, we use it for everything through training all the way up through management. 

Due to the skills shortage, we are able to use it from the standpoint of bringing in a lower level employee or a person who may not have security knowledge. We can put them in front of the product and they will still have the information that they need and have them at a level where they can run the system. Also, products, like Watson, make it work better.

The overall workload automation should be built into it. Part of the efficiency side of it is the ability to take the information as it comes in and assign it into a group. Now, the team leader no longer needs to assign it manually. He manages the workflow as it comes in directly to the individuals. Then, the individuals respond on it. As it closes, it goes back to the workflow, recording the amount of time it took for them to close it. It should show: 

• How long did it take to get assigned?
• How long did it take for the person to open it?

Then, you can show that a person may have issues opening network problems.

We have not suffered a network breach.

The solution has improved the efficiency of our security team.

We are at 115,000 events per second.

We run 65 servers with just two people: an engineering person and me.

We have 65 servers globally, and I just got my own.

The technical support is poor. Mostly because when I open a PMR for IBM, I am stuck with Level 1 staff. As an engineer, nothing that I am bringing them does not require Level 2 or Level 3 support. Most of the stuff that I open ends up code changes or bug fixes.

Our company is far more mature than most. Our issue is that the support is slow.

It was a whole different product when we installed it.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor: stability. The security space is tough. Unlike a lot of other spaces, IBM will not be bought anytime soon as a 100 year-old company.

The most valuable feature for us is probably the intelligence we get out of the product.

The organizational value we derive from it is that it helps us track down where we have problems.

We appreciate ease of use in the product, so I suppose they could bring the cost down. I haven't really thought about possible improvements. They've added a lot of good features to the apps. I'm still exploring those and there are a lot of good features there.

I have used the solution for about 15 years.

Overall I'd say the stability is pretty good. I have noticed some issues with the patch and updates recently, especially version 72A. There have been some problems where a patch would come out and a few days later another patch would have to come out to fix issues that weren't encountered so that's caused some issues for us.

Scalability is good.

The initial technical support to call is less than adequate. I usually know more than the level one or level two, again because I've been a customer for 15 years. I worked with the original QRadar guys to help develop their SIEM solutions so I know quite a bit about it. Usually when we call in it's a real problem because we fix most of our own problems.

Fifteen years ago it was very complex because of the linking of different flow collectors. Being processed together, upgrading them was painful. That part has improved greatly as you can just put the update process in the console and push Yes. That's a lot better.

It's a great product. They're obviously an industry leader right now in this field, if you're looking for SIEM, I would recommend it.

I use IBM Security QRadar in my company for authentication of users and to block the access of a user to the internet. In my company, we have only used the basic version of the solution, and currently, we don't have a license for the product since we didn't renew it. The basic version of the solution fits my company's basic requirements.

IBM Security QRadar is not hard to implement and administrate. To serve new use cases or do the tuning and allow correlation rules, you may need training since it is necessary to know the solution. With IBM solutions, you need training to know how to use the different features of the solution. IBM needs to provide training to its users to teach them how to use the case manager and how to tune rules.

I have been using IBM Security QRadar since 2020, so I have experience with it for three years. I am a customer of IBM.

It is a scalable solution.

With IBM Security QRadar, my company faced issues with the support we received for the product. Basically, my company faced problems due to the delays or mistakes made by IBM's support team.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

For the product's implementation, my company took two months. To implement all log sources, my company took somewhere between three to five months.

IBM Security QRadar is a very expensive tool.

In the future, my company would want the cloud version of the solution and not its on-prem version.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

We use the blocking mode and spam mode for the IPS - XGS 5000 series and use of QRadar as a SIEM Solution for logging and monitoring network security, security analysis, and monitoring for network-related attacks. 

The playbook is defined with identified use cases. IPS acted as an inline to the firewall. It helped to track and sniff the packet and match the details. It helped to reduce the insider and outsider attacks. The traffic is analyzed and helped users to know the patters and access level in the network and resource being used.

It helped our organization to identify and prevent security attacks.

We need to come with new releases and understand what will happen and how the customer will be able to manage and update the system what are ways in which user behavior and access to various resources in the network could be tracked and alerted in more robust manner. 

There needs to be proper patch management which is done in a controlled environment with a proper newsletter update. The new releases from the company in terms of product and services needs to be updated to product managers in organization.

The monitoring and dashboards are great. 

The user behavior analysis could be better. The playbook guide which specifies the rules for security use cases needs to be provided to support in case the organization needs help. The security playbook needs more help when it comes to QRadar. The QRadar implementation guide, especially in cluster environment, is complicated to deploy in an enterprise level. The support of SIEM of QRadar is complicated and when we encounter implementation issues it needs quick response. The skilled resources are really important for support.

I have deployed the solution for 230 sites across globe using for past seven years.

When it sends the log source, QRadar generates a lot of noise and false positives. LogRhythm logs when the alarm rules are disabled, so it doesn't generate any noise when sending the log source. I think LogRhythm's one, this one too. QRadar, we have to cure it all the time. It's only this advantage with QRadar.

I would also like to see more integration with other vendors. IBM doesn't integrate well with products from China, like Huawei. Many Middle Eastern customers are switching to Huawei from American vendors like Cisco because of the price. In most RFPs, Huawei wins because it costs less. 

IBM needs to integrate better with Huawei. I opened one case with IBM, and they told me to submit a request for enhancement so they could write the correct DSMs to integrate with Huawei. We were very disappointed. Customers who want to implement QRadar or LogRhythm need to consider all the other components. The environment needs to be homogenous to avoid problems due to a lack of integration.

My old company used QRadar, so I still use it sometimes when I consult for them. They get stuck on a few things. I also worked on vulnerability discovery. Right now, my current customers are migrating from QRadar to LogRhythm.

QRadar is built around Red Hat Linux, which is highly robust.

IBM's support for QRadar could be improved. Sometimes it takes them two days to reply to a low-priority case. However, it tasks them about 1.5 hours to respond to a more serious case. Sometimes our customer service will think it's a priority one case, so he asks me to open it as priority one, then IBM reduces it to two or three. 

We don't have any security appliances from Huawei, but they have the best technical support. We have engineers everywhere with CRM, and they call you after the problem is resolved. IBM closes the case, and that's it. It's a very restricted environment. 

QRadar is reasonable compared to LogRhythm.

I rate IBM QRadar nine out of 10. If you're going to use QRadar, you have to be familiar with it and know all the components. IBM offers free appliances, like data nodes, that offload many processes from the collectors and the processors. 

Every engineer must understand the overall portfolio to add some value to the solutions. If a solution isn't integrated with other solutions, they are only collectors. You need to tune the rules and be up to date with the Mitre Att&ck framework all the time.

The most valuable feature of this product is the nice UI. It is easy and quick to get the information you're looking for.

The benefits are that it's easy to navigate the UI and to get the information as quickly as possible. We're able to resolve problems quicker, so that we get to the solution in an easier manner.

It would probably be better to get more access to the APIs.

The product is very stable. I don't have any issues with stability at all.

Scalability is nice, as well. We have a distributed environment and it's real easy to both manage and upgrade. Anything we need to do, we can do it from the console.

On a scale of 1-10, probably seven; I would rate the technical support team a 7/10.

We were previously using a different solution that just wasn't getting the job done. It was taking too long to get where we needed to get to.

The setup was very straightforward. The special services team gave us insight and helped out to resolve any issues.

QRadar was at the top our list. We also looked at other solutions such as HPE ArcSight and Splunk. The reason we went with QRadar is because we could bring it on-prem, which made it nice, and we also use other IBM products as well.

In general, when selecting a vendor, support is probably going to be the number one criteria. Then, the second criteria is the availability of the product; the product is not very good if it's not available, it's broken, etc.

Make sure you try them all and then, pick the one that you think would work the best. It's nice to value other people's opinions, but it's better to test all the products and choose what you think would be best, for whatever your need is.

It's very easy and initiative. It's just a good overall solution, compared to the other ones I've used.

I use IBM Security QRadar in my company as it provides features like SIEM, SOAR, and QNI.

The most valuable feature of IBM Security QRadar stems from the fact that it is a product that is like a complete suite.

The price of IBM Security QRadar is an area of concern where improvements are required. IBM is never known to provide products at a cheap price.

IBM Security QRadar's UI is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are needed.

In the future, I would like IBM Security QRadar to have a library of adapters or APIs.

The area around recovery time is an aspect of IBM's technical support where improvements are required.

I have been using IBM Security QRadar for more than a year. I use the solution's latest version. My company is in the process of being declared as a golden partner of IBM.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company currently deals with around four to five organizations comprising medium to large companies where IBM Security QRadar is used.

The solution's technical support is responsive. The only area where I don't agree with IBM Security QRadar's technical support stems from the lack of proper or defined recovery time, even though their response time is good.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with Splunk. My company deals with Splunk since we had no choice owing to the fact that one or two customers wanted it.

In the past, I was using open-source products, including solutions like Elastic Security and Wazuh.

My company decided to switch from Wazuh to IBM Security QRadar.

The product's deployment phase can be described as an average one.

I rate the deployment process of IBM Security QRadar a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate the price a one, where one is an extremely expensive product, and ten is a cheap product. IBM Security QRadar is an expensive product. A customer gets discounts only when they ask for them from IBM.

The challenge is that if someone submits a request or proposal and finds that the prices of the products our company deals with are too high, we may not even be shortlisted for negotiations. If my company gets shortlisted for the next round, then we get questioned over the high prices.

My company takes care of the maintenance part of the solution for our clients who use IBM Security QRadar in their environments. Nine engineers and one manager take care of the maintenance process of IBM Security QRadar. My company has a lot of certified employees to take care of IBM Security QRadar's maintenance. My company can be considered a powerhouse when it comes to products from IBM.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

Splunk and IBM are leaders as per Gartner Magic Quadrant. I believe that IBM Security QRadar should be fairly priced for SMEs.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

There is a Pulse dashboard that they have. From a reporting perspective, we'll be creating dashboards based on the pulse functionalities. 

There are other third-party plugins that we can use as well. We can initiate in the QRadar platform, however, Pulse is one of the most user-friendly options. 

Along with that, there are out the box rules and out the box dashboards that we have available to us. Mostly what we are concentrating on is creating the rules and fine-tuning the rules to align properly with the customer infrastructure depending upon the customer's requirements. Pulse, UEBA, and NBAD are the features that are the best. They are the most useful from a SOC manager perspective.

The AQL queries could be better. With the queries, there's an option for you to create dashboards based on the queries that they have. The documentation that is available for AQL queries is not well received. They could maybe look at how Microsoft is leveraging AQLs from a Sentinel perspective and create more documentation and training materials and make those more available to the general public.

They have to facilitate more learning opportunities. Microsoft has something called Playground where you have some sample logs and where you can learn how to work on all this stuff, however, there is nothing like that for IBM. They really could make it more generalized and accessible to the general analyst population.

Technical support should be improved.

In terms of QRadar, I've used it for close to two years. I worked for a customer that is a managed security service provider. What we do is we will provide SOC as a service and QRadar. IBM is one of the partners that we have. Depending upon the customer considerations and customer preferences, we will either engage QRadar or Sentinel according to the customer preferences. Splunk and LogRhythm we also use on an as-needed basis. 

What they have claimed is 99.5% uptime. However, I'm not very sure whether there's an implementation problem or not. Sometimes the system gets hung and then we have to restart everything from the scratch. You have got these multi printing options, though not functionally. Sometimes it gets some jitters there. Sometimes there are cases where we are finding it very difficult to get into the system as there can be three or four people logging into the same platform at the same time and sometimes the reduces the speed a lot.

From an architect implementation perspective, the role that I have played is very limited. I'm not very sure about scaling. I'm not in a position to comment on that part. That said, once everything is implemented, I've noted that it's not as scalable as Sentinel or Splunk on the cloud, for sure. That is the same for LogRhythm and QRadar. Obviously, cloud-hosted applications will be more scalable and more resilient.

Technical support is something that has always been an issue for us. We have to raise a ticket and the products team will be available, however, depending upon the criticality, sometimes the support is not very easily accessible on weekends and on Friday evenings.

I've also worked with Sentinel, Splunk, QRadar, and LogRhythm. 

Compared to Sentinel, the initial setup is a bit complex. Depending upon whether you're going ahead with the cloud version or on-prem version, there is human involvement, however, normally everything is done by the platform engineer. I don't have to get my head into that part. Once everything is up and running, that is when we have to start working from our side. I'm sure it is more complex than a plug-and-play Sentinel, where connectors are easily available and just have to click, click and get things done.

The administration and maintenance would be two or three people depending upon the availability. I'm not very sure about troubleshooting. I'm coming at the solution from a user perspective. I'm more concerned with the rule fine-tuning and rule-building part. That kind of troubleshooting will be done with the platform team, which specializes in that. 

Licensing is mostly dependent on the EPS, events per second. Depending upon the number of products that are integrated with the platform, we have to come to an optimal EPS value. I'm not very sure about the financials, however, the licensing cost cannot be as much as that for Sentinel, which is not very low. For customers who need medium EPS values, we advise QRadar.

The basic out the box cost covers, the EPS value that you have specified, and then some archiving maybe. It should include at least six months of archiving and other functionalities. Most of the customers will go for the standard package and we don't have to go for extra archival or enhanced DPS. 10% to 15% of DPS can always be increased. It will not completely shut down the system, however, it'll start sending us notifications that the DPS is getting increased and then we can go for a higher licensing.

The version we use depends on when the customer is onboarded. Whenever recent onboarding takes place, we use the most up-to-date versions. However, there are customers that we have been facilitating for the past two or two and a half years and they might be using the previous versions. There are proper version upgrades that happen on a quarterly basis. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.