We performed a comparison between Microsoft Sentinel and Seceon Open Threat Management Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The dashboard that allows me to view all the incidents is the most valuable feature."
"The automation rules and playbooks are the most useful that I've seen. A number of other places segregate the automation and playbook as separate tools, whereas Microsoft is a SIEM and SOAR tool in one."
"I like the KQL query. It simplifies getting data from the table and seeing the logs. All you need to know are the table names. It's quite easy to build use cases by using KQL."
"The initial setup is very simple and straightforward."
"The best functionality that you can get from Azure Sentinel is the SOAR capability. So, you can estimate any type of activity, such as when an alert was triggered or an incident was found."
"It is easy to implement (turn on) - does need a skilled analyst to develop queries and playbooks."
"We’ve got process improvement that's happened across multiple different fronts within the organization, within our IT organization based on this tool being in place."
"Investigations are something really remarkable. We can drill down right to the raw logs by running different queries and getting those on the console itself."
"The main thing is the value proposition. It is one of the most sophisticated yet affordable solutions that I've come across. It is also one of the easiest-to-manage yet comprehensive solutions for a SOC analyst. Its customizations are really good, and it has a lot of integrations. It is multi-tenant and very fast to onboard. Its stability is 100%. We've never had an outage with it. It doesn't require extensive hardware resources. Its level of support is also very good. They have a very responsive technical team."
"Seceon Open Threat Management Platform notifies only genuine alerts. It offers plenty of options that are suitable for MSPs."
"The algorithm used in Seceon OTM is clear and logical, categorizing events as needed. This helps us identify and respond to threats effectively."
"You can use different solutions in a single platform which is very easy and attractive for customers."
"I like that it's an AI-based platform. The most valuable feature is that it's a comprehensive solution. Most tools in the marketplace are comprised of miscellaneous items. They fail to provide real-time remediation features. However, with Seceon Open Threat Management Platform, anything you can think of in cybersecurity, like auto-remediation, real-time response, and even on-premise components, is available in a single platform. So, it's perfect for finance and healthcare who don't want to share their data with a third party like the cloud. You can have this on-premise as well. So, the expenditure will be lower as less human intervention is required."
"The solution is stable."
"We only recently started using Seceon, so we aren't taking advantage of all its features yet. We have enabled some proactive alerts about utilization and bottlenecks from high traffic."
"The solution is very cost-effective compared to Splunk and LogRhythm."
"They need to work with other security vendors. For example, we replaced our email gateway with Symantec, but we couldn't collect these logs with Azure Sentinel. Instead of collecting these logs with Azure Sentinel, we are collecting them on Qradar. We couldn't do it with Sentinel, which is a problem for us."
"We have been working with multiple customers, and every time we onboard a customer, we are missing an essential feature that surprisingly doesn't exist in Sentinel. We searched the forums and knowledge bases but couldn't find a solution. When you onboard new customers, you need to enable the data connectors. That part is easy, but you must create rules from scratch for every associated connector. You click "next," "next," "next," and it requires five clicks for each analytical rule. Imagine we have a customer with 150 rules."
"The product can be improved by reducing the cost to use AI machine learning."
"Sentinel should be improved with more connectors. At the moment, it only covers a few vendors. If I remember correctly, only 100 products are supported natively in Sentinel, although you can connect them with syslog. But Microsoft should increase the number of native connectors to get logs into Sentinel."
"The learning curve could be improved. I am still learning it. We were able to implement the basic features to get them up and running, but there are still so many things that I don't know about all its features. They have a lot of features that we have not been able to use or apply. If they could work on reducing the solution's learning curve, that would be good. While there is a training course held by Microsoft to learn more about this solution, there is a cost associated with it."
"I think the number one area of improvement for Sentinel would be the cost."
"Not all information shows up in Sentinel. Sometimes there are items provided in 365 and if you looked in Sentinel you would not see them and therefore think they do not exist. There can be discrepancies between Microsoft tools."
"Sentinel could improve its ticketing and management. A few customers I have worked with liked to take the data created in Sentinel. You can make some basic efforts around that, but the customers wanted to push it to a third-party system so they could set up a proper ticketing management system, like ServiceNow, Jira, etc."
"It would be better if they offered global coverage."
"The product could be improved by including sandboxing capabilities in the next release."
"We are at the client’s end, offering services. They don’t know about security rules and benchmarks. We are working on the discovery and remediation but we don’t really have the intelligence that was available while working with other tools. Human working is also very essential for the solution. The automatic session is impossible to play since it needs to touch Redfin for further analysis. No one has breached our clients."
"The product should improve the triggering rate."
"For future releases, integrating incident response tools and improving communication on incident reporting could be beneficial."
"The dashboard has always been an issue."
"The management console could use some enhancements."
"It is a standalone solution now. They need to make it into a cloud-based subscription model. It needs more compatibility for co-managed solutions. It can also have more threats and deeper integration with Microsoft."
More Seceon Open Threat Management Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Sentinel is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 85 reviews while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is ranked 21st in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 10 reviews. Microsoft Sentinel is rated 8.2, while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Sentinel writes "Gives a comprehensive and holistic view of the ecosystem and improves visibility and the ability to respond". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seceon Open Threat Management Platform writes "Has the ability to categorize alerts and reporting dashboards are useful". Microsoft Sentinel is most compared with AWS Security Hub, IBM Security QRadar, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Elastic Security, whereas Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is most compared with IBM Security QRadar, Securonix Next-Gen SIEM, Fortinet FortiSIEM, Splunk Enterprise Security and LogRhythm SIEM. See our Microsoft Sentinel vs. Seceon Open Threat Management Platform report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.
