IBM Security QRadar Reviews

The most valuable features are its ease of use and that it provides good return on investments. It's the best solution out there, in my opinion.

It brings down the time for our incident handlers to find incidents within our environment, to track down new threats and to keep them gainfully employed, by finding the new problems that we see.

I'm not really sure in regards to any additional features, because everything I've seen on the roadmap looks good. So, I'm pretty happy with that.

There is always scope for improvement. The QRadar WinCollect feature needs to be improved. The Windows Log collection is sort of problematic and needs to work better.

A little bit more improvement needs to be brought about in the Watson integration and I still need to see how that works. A little more improvement can be brought about in the User Behavior Analytics and Network Analytics. That would be great.

We've had no issues with its stability or scalability.

The technical support is very good. After the Q1 Labs integration into IBM, they kept the same people. I'm a long-time user and I keep talking to the same people year after year.

It's worth the cost. There are a lot of other options out there that are way more expensive, and that may be better in certain areas, but in my opinion, the overall best solution is QRadar.

First, make sure that it's sized right and read all the manuals, before you do it.

Interoperability with other products is what I look for in a vendor. An open API is the big thing. I want be able to make sure that if I buy something, it will be able to talk with other products. I won't need to keep going down the same path, i.e., if I buy company X, I have to buy company X products all the way; otherwise, they won't talk to each other. Being able to talk with other products really makes a difference.

We are using QRadar as a managed service.

This product helps us to find security incidents before they become a problem to the business. We are able to attend to them quicker and we can put protection in place so that should they occur again, we are able to deal with them more easily.

The most valuable feature is the ease of use.

The modularity could be improved.

We have been using IBM QRadar for three years.

This is a very stable product.

We have had no issues with scalability and we have approximately 1,500 users. We are not using its full capabilities at the moment because we are still growing. In the next year or two, we will see.

I don't deal with IBM directly. Rather, I deal with our service provider and they deal with IBM.

The initial set was very easy for us because we just bought what we were looking for, and not the entire infrastructure.

The company that we subscribe to for this service takes care of the installation, maintenance, and management of it. They give us updates that concern the features we use, so the maintenance doesn't affect us much.

We use QRadar as a managed service and we pay licensing fees to the partner.

This is a good tool to have because it gives you the ability to track what is currently happening in your environment. Otherwise, if you did not have that, you'd only react to an event or an incident that has already caused problems. The proactiveness goes a long way because it saves your environment and your business from being negatively affected.

In summary, this is a good product but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We have a lot of use cases with IBM QRadar, but our primary use is for monitoring traffic and detecting tricks.

In terms of how IBM QRadar has improved our company, on peak days it helps us monitor and generate statistics that help to illustrate what is going on in the company. For example, SMB detects ransomware and invalid log-on. If a user is located in the United States, or we expect a login in Russia, or Ukraine, or Kenya, it is very important for us because we can detect what application they are using there, or if a hacker is trying to log in by mobile or another device.

I have found its network traffic log, network bit log, and QBI most valuable.

We have a lot of domain controllers in QRadar tracking all the security. It is also useful for identity management.

In terms of where it could be improved, this includes its forensics, incident response, and security operation center features. Additionally, some also struggle with the rules. We need more features in order to create rules to detect or to meet some requirements for other areas, such as catching the event from other authentication tools, like in Okta, for example.

In some cases, I have issues because some tools are not integrated in QRadar, such as other tools similar to DLP (Data Loss Prevention). We need to create all the integrations manually because they are not integrated in QRadar. We have a problem, for example, because they have Symantec DLP integrated in QRadar, however, it is not working because it's not detected automatically. It is not converting all the columns, but we do have the option to create manually. This is not difficult because it's very clear in the procedures.

I have been using IBM QRadar for seven years.

QRadar's stability is great because it is always live and is always catching and monitoring all the information that we need. When we need information, it is here in QRadar. 

In terms of maintenance of QRadar, my internet is secured by IBM.

For me, the scalability is good.

At the moment, we have no more than 15 people working on QRadar. This includes analysts, forensics, internet response, and active directory.

Tech support is good. Additionally, I can find all the information at IBM.

In some cases, the system or the hardware do not meet the requirements to install one flow collector. Or the menu is not displayed. The menu has 10 options. If the CPU and memory are not enough, the menu shows only five or six options. But this information is not mentioned in the installation process. But it is not complex because the installation is very clear as long as we are meeting all the requirements for the CPU, memory, or the space.

The solution takes maybe four months because we have a lot of integrations.

I would absolutely recommend QRadar because it has a lot of options to improve or detect some information.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give QRadar a 10.

Our primary use case is intrusion prevention and detection. We also use this solution for compliance and assisting in network troubleshooting for IT.

This has been indispensable in detecting intrusion attempts and many forms of malicious activity. 

This solution provides amazing visibility into the network and endpoints. The ability to correlate point in time and things happening over time is priceless in today's threat environment.

The rules can look for things both from log sources and from data traversing your network which is unique in the SIEM world and makes QRadar a consistent magic quadrant leader.

The QNI file hash in-flight search is helpful.

The ability to transition from microscopic to macroscopic view, instantly, is very good.

I would still  like to see a better GUI. improvements have been made but there still a way to go.

There are pretty annoyances like clicking out of a rule setup and instead of going back to search results in the rules, with the rule you selected still highlighted, you get the whole list without your search. Start again.  In the new lig source management app if you have a large number of log sources typing a name to filter them by is Java Hell, the high overhead of JIT compiled code means that even two fingered  carpal tunnel afflicted users can outpace the type ahead buffer, leaving random intermediate characters on the floor. Needless to say that makes managing log sources sometimes annoying. You can always cut and paste to go around this, but hey for  5 or 6 figures in hardware  and software, it aught to keep up with my typing. 

But to be fair, these kinds of things are dwarfed by it's awesome ability to ingest and correlate tortured use cases of mind boggling complexity, which is what you REALLY need your SIEM to do. That, QRadar does better than anyone else.

I have been using IBM QRadar for more about five years.

Scalability is very good.

This is not a trivial undertaking. You will need at least one experienced user and considerable infrastructure to support this if you use the on-prem version which we did. The cloud version has less overhead but there are some limitations so choose carefully.

Other solutions were investigated but none none came close to QRadar's capability.

If you absolutely positively have to catch the bad guys, and you have a heterogeneous environment QRadar is a great choice.

IBM Qradar is

• Ease of install . Its effectively redhat6.5 with an app on top.

• Automatic log source identification

• Inbuilt rules and reports are comprehensive so out of the box the system does things

• Recognises every log source we have added.
• IBM supply a virtual image which makes the standing up of a system a small piece of work.

IBM Qradar has great data reduction. We have several hundred million log records arrive on various of the platforms daily and have been able to tune them to alert on important things well. Very few false positives.

Like any SIEM product at a very base level the system is a pattern matcher. Looking for patterns in single log messages or looking for patterns in multiple logs messages combined with flow data. It has a primary focus of Security Event Management but you can look for anything in the information flowing through the system and can alert on it. So it can be used - and we do - as a general IT event management/monitoring system.

Room for improvement - IBM Qradar:

• Graphing on the system is a tad course. Analytics now requires really high quality graphing to assist in pinpointing anomalies.
• Need for multiple Java versions for deployment setup is a pain.
• There are areas you need to have Java 7 to be able to use.(Primary need for this is to access the Deployment area)
• We need to be able to handle multiple overlapping ip address areas. That is coming we know. But slowly.
• When you are building this in a virtualised environment you do have a bit of difficulty accessing the GUI.

3.5 years

I have used several versions of the Qradar system. Both the IBM version and the Juniper STRM OEM version.

IBM I rate as 7.5/10

STRM at 7/10

No real issues with deploy. What it is doing is exactly what we expected. It does have a few wrinkles but that is more about where we are collecting logs from.

No stability issues yet.

No scalability issues yet. We have sized the latest system to cope with up to 10000 eps and or only at about 4000 at the moment. Scaling is simply adding extra license as required at the moment. Easy.

Generally excellent.

Generally excellent.

• We were using SPLUNK. Licensing does not allow you to expose Splunk screens to customers (we are an ISP and IT service provider).
• Mcafee Nitro was too expensive
• Arcsight takes too long to install and tune

Simple:

• Boot VM off ISO image.
• Install license
• Point logs at it
• Done

Occasionally the documentation did not reflect what was happening so did need to access tech support a few times.

We implemented it ourselves. Initial seat of pants approach. Worked. I got my Redhat builder to spin up the two VM servers off the supplied image, licensed them, gave them the appropriate IP addresses, created the deployment (the Java 7 bit) and the system started receiving logs from the 1200 CISCO routers.

We are fulfilling a government contract. Install and move to BAU has been done and it came in under the estimated budget…..so All Good.

• Mcafee Nitro
• Juniper STRM
• AlienVault. Note. We would probably have used AlienVault but there was no representation in Asia Pacific at the time
• TrustWave

• First gather your requirements
• From that build a business case.
• Understand that no matter what technology you choose the technology area is 15% of the effort. Your processes are 85%. No process…then 5h1t in …5h1t out.
• Make sure you know your business reasons for the implementation

To be very frank, it's not that much help as of now. We are not getting that many insights from UVA, which we wanted, actually. As of now, we are exploring that UVA, and we have installed it. It's still quite new.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The solution is still new to us. Currently, it's a work in progress with this. I'm not in any particular condition to tell what exact improvements are required. I will let a few more months go by before analyzing the overall UBS solution QRadar to get to know and final understanding of this particular application.

There are a lot of things that require modification. That's my initial observation, however, I need more time and a few more months to get to know it and get a final understanding of the solution as a whole.

I want a reduction of false positives. I want crisp true positive incidents out of it. I want to see proper user behavior. Whatever algorithm is working in the background, that algorithm should produce accurate, true positive incidents and not false positives.

We are using QRadar as an appliance for the last four years, however, we recently, for the last six months, started using UBS.

I'm not sure about the stability just yet. We've observed a few issues and we raised a supporting ticket for it.

The scalability is very good. It's not a problem.

Technical support has been very supportive. We're largely satisfied with them.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. It's not very complex. 

We are using multiple features in QRadar. UVA is just one feature. We have overall 14 data nodes and we are almost 2,500 GB of data integrated with it and we are using multiple applications in QRadar. We have a nine-member team that manages the overall QRadar architecture, not only UBA.

We did a direct integration.

I'm an architect. Normally costs and licensing are handled by senior management.

For UBA, they haven't asked for any extra charges or anything. It's included in the licensing.

We're an IBM partner. We have platinum support with IBM.

We have segregated our data between on-prem and the cloud. All the on-prem data we have integrated with the QRadar. QRadar itself is an on-prem solution. We have QRadar hardware with us.

At this point, I would not recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

The price is very good. It's quite reasonable.

The solution's performance is excellent. The stability is excellent.

We've found the technical support to be very good.

The pricing is very good.

The product needs to improve its GUI. The dashboard which they facilitate needs to be modernized. They could make it a lot better and a lot easier to navigate.

I've been using the solution for approximately two years or so.

The stability of the product has been great. It's from 80% to 90% is stable. There are very few bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. If you do run into issues, technical support is quite helpful. 

The product works well for small or medium-sized enterprises.

The technical support has been great so far. If you run into any kind of issue, their support is available. They are very helpful and extremely responsive. We're quite satisfied with their level of service. I'd give them a rating of 90% to 95%.

The pricing of the solution is quite reasonable.

We're a customer and an end-user. We don't have a direct business relationship with IBM.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with the product so far.

I'd recommend the solution, however, depends upon a company's budget and requirements. For small and medium enterprises, QRadar is the best solution, due to its price and performance.

Depending on the organization's needs the solution can monitor different types of security through logs.

I have found the most important features to be the flexibility, tech framework, and disk manager. Additionally, the solution is easy to learn how to use it.

There could be better integration with the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

Every solution has some bugs and other issues but for the most part, this solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. The amount of users is dependant on what your needs are. You can have many users having access to the solution. For example, out of a 5,000 person network, you could have five with access to it for security. 

The solution has great support. Whenever we had an issue they were able to give us support within 15 minutes.

The installation was easy but this can depend on what appliances you want to install it on. If it is VMware, then the installation is easy, it took me 30 minutes.

We did use a consultant to do the deployment and we only needed one technician.

The solution is priced fairly, there is a license for the solution, and we pay annually.

I would recommend the solution to others and we plan to continue using it in the future.

I rate IBM QRadar a nine out of ten.