In our comparison of QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect is the best option with a higher overall Wheelhouse Score. Wheelhouse Score uses a combination of feature and pricing comparison data, average user ratings, and editorial reviews to score software vendors on a scale of 1-10.
* Vendor does not share prices.
* Vendor does not share prices.
QRadar effectively addresses the need to monitor, investigate, detect, and respond to threats on devices and endpoints within the environment. Its logs retention capability is commendable, and it efficiently collates and analyzes large amounts of data from both cloud and on-site sources, providing valuable insights for security operations.
One of the best aspects of QRadar is its ability to assist in threat detection and response, providing a comprehensive solution for remediating threats. Its open architecture allows for deployment on various platforms, including on-premises, cloud, or as a service. The integration capabilities with EDR, SIEM, SOAR, and other threat intelligence tools enable a unified and comprehensive XDR approach.
There are a few areas that could be improved. The EPS cap, which limits the number of logs that can be integrated into QRadar, can sometimes result in generating false positives. Additionally, the user-friendliness of the platform could be enhanced, especially in terms of setting rules, which can be a bit challenging.
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
IBM QRadar serves as a valuable SIEM tool that enhances the portfolio of offerings, especially when used alongside MDR services. It provides valuable insights into the latest cyber threats and offers various log types for the monitoring team, benefiting the overall security and threat detection capabilities.
The integration of threat intelligence feeds with QRadar is outstanding, providing valuable and insightful information. Additionally, the graphical user interface (GUI) of the tool is impressive and well-designed, catering to the needs of analysts.
One drawback of QRadar is its high license cost, which can be expensive for organizations. Additionally, customization requests and configuring specific use cases incur additional charges. Another aspect that could be improved is the response time of the support team, as they tend to take longer to address queries or issues.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
QRadar effectively addresses the need to monitor, investigate, detect, and respond to threats on devices and endpoints within the environment. Its logs retention capability is commendable, and it efficiently collates and analyzes large amounts of data from both cloud and on-site sources, providing valuable insights for security operations.
One of the best aspects of QRadar is its ability to assist in threat detection and response, providing a comprehensive solution for remediating threats. Its open architecture allows for deployment on various platforms, including on-premises, cloud, or as a service. The integration capabilities with EDR, SIEM, SOAR, and other threat intelligence tools enable a unified and comprehensive XDR approach.
There are a few areas that could be improved. The EPS cap, which limits the number of logs that can be integrated into QRadar, can sometimes result in generating false positives. Additionally, the user-friendliness of the platform could be enhanced, especially in terms of setting rules, which can be a bit challenging.
IBM QRadar serves as a valuable SIEM tool that enhances the portfolio of offerings, especially when used alongside MDR services. It provides valuable insights into the latest cyber threats and offers various log types for the monitoring team, benefiting the overall security and threat detection capabilities.
The integration of threat intelligence feeds with QRadar is outstanding, providing valuable and insightful information. Additionally, the graphical user interface (GUI) of the tool is impressive and well-designed, catering to the needs of analysts.
One drawback of QRadar is its high license cost, which can be expensive for organizations. Additionally, customization requests and configuring specific use cases incur additional charges. Another aspect that could be improved is the response time of the support team, as they tend to take longer to address queries or issues.
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Add suggested to comparison
In our rating and review comparison of QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect, QRadar SIEM has 26 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for QRadar SIEM is 4.15 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. QRadar SIEM has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect reviews, QRadar SIEM has stronger overall reviews.
QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Workflow Automation, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Reminders/Alerts, Report Management, Systems/Administrative, Customizable Items, Integration Options, Compliance Accreditations, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than QRadar SIEM.
In our pricing comparison of QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect's pricing starts at 0/month and is more affordable compared to ThreatConnect's starting cost of 0/month.
Our comparison of QRadar SIEM vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for meets requirements, learning curve, ease of admin. QRadar SIEM scores higher in ease of use, setup & support, quality of support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
