We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Datadog based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: QRadar users say the solution provides extensive information and helpful leads for locating pertinent data. QRadar stands out with its comprehensive network visibility and strong SIEM capabilities. Datadog users like its customizable displays, error tracking, and advanced AI/ML capabilities. QRadar could improve its rule deployment and lower its false positive rate. Users would also like expanded storage capacity, streamlined user management, and a more mature architecture. Datadog could enhance its usability and reduce its learning curve. Users said integration was another pain point.
Service and Support: Some QRadar customers have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. While many users spoke highly of Datadog’s support team, others reported slow support, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
Ease of Deployment: QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Datadog’s setup is considered straightforward, and users often receive help from a partner or vendor.
Pricing: QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Opinions about Datadog's price are divided. Some users found it costly, but others thought it was acceptable. Some said the pricing model could be clearer and better explained.
ROI: QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Users said Datadog saved them time and improved visibility into security blind spots.
"The performance of Datadog is good."
"Datadog is constantly adding new features."
"The Datadog suite has allowed us to easily integrate log collection into all of our services and quickly detect unexpected changes in system data to declare security incidents."
"We have way more observability than what we had before - on the application and the overall system."
"Overall, the Data UI and the usability of customer features continue to improve."
"The monitoring functionality, in general, and tagging infrastructure are great."
"The product has offered increased visibility via logging APM, metrics, RUM, etc."
"This is definitely a good product and I would consider them one of the leaders within the application monitoring and cloud monitoring space."
"The solution is quite flexible."
"It has a good integration with the artificial intelligence engine of Watson."
"Overall a great solution."
"What's most valuable in IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is its higher availability than other tools."
"A nice benefit is when we go to the process of selecting our youth cases, they go by building blocks. QRadar links it to building blocks."
"On the back-end, Watson helps me figure out an exact problem, sometimes giving me the result."
"It is a very good SIEM."
"IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics has easy architecture, has a good portfolio and integration."
"We need a lot of modules since we collect all data logs from all operating systems."
"Datadog is so feature-rich that it is often hard to onboard new folks and tough to decide where to invest time."
"The menu on the left is pretty dense (and I know it has to be). I never knew about the cmd+k functionality until recently. It would be helpful to offer more tips/cheat sheets to see handy shortcuts like that."
"We have recently had a number of issues with stability and delays on logging, monitoring, metric evaluation, and alerts."
"Once Datadog has gained wide adoption, it can often be overwhelming to both know and understand where to go to find answers to questions."
"This service could be less costly."
"We primarily use the log management functionality, and the only feedback I have there is better fuzzy text searching in logs (the kind that Kibana has)."
"While the tool is robust with many different capabilities, users would greatly benefit from more examples in the documentation."
"I would like to see a more user-friendly product."
"The features that could be improved include the licensing model and the dashboards and all those presentations. Overall, the user experience part can be improved."
"It needs more resilience and functionality."
"I need a solution which will send alerts in the event of any behavior."
"The solution is highly used here in Pakistan and in many sectors, they could improve it by having more SIEM connectors."
"Right now, if you look at the compatibility, if you need to deploy QRadar in a physical appliance you have only two choices of server, their own or a Lenovo server. In today's world, you cannot keep something tied to such a big brand. Clients want to be able to use whatever type of server they want."
"The dashboards are all legacy and old."
"It would be better if it were more stable and more secure. The price for maintenance could be better. It's too high. In the next release, I think they should focus on the price and the operation."
Datadog is ranked 3rd in Log Management with 137 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Google Chronicle Suite. See our Datadog vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.