We performed a comparison between Devo and NetWitness Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the biggest features of the UI is that you see the actual code of what you're doing in the graphical user interface, in a little window on the side. Whatever you're doing, you see the code, what's happening. And you can really quickly switch between using the GUI and using the code. That's really useful."
"It's very, very versatile."
"The user interface is really modern. As an end-user, there are a lot of possibilities to tailor the platform to your needs, and that can be done without needing much support from Devo. It's really flexible and modular. The UI is very clean."
"The most valuable feature is that it has native MSSP capabilities and maintains perfect data separation. It does all of that in a very easy-to-manage cloud-based solution."
"Devo provides a multi-tenant, cloud-native architecture. This is critical for managed service provider environments or multinational organizations who may have subsidiaries globally. It gives organizations a way to consolidate their data in a single accessible location, yet keep the data separate. This allows for global views and/or isolated views restricted by access controls by company or business unit."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ability that Devo has to ingest data. From the previous SIEM that I came from and helped my company administer, it really was the type of system where data was parsed on ingest. This meant that if you didn't build the parser efficiently or correctly, sometimes that would bring the system to its knees. You'd have a backlog of processing the logs as it was ingesting them."
"The real-time analytics of security-related data are super. There are a lot of data feeds going into it and it's very quick at pulling up and correlating the data and showing you what's going on in your infrastructure. It's fast. The way that their architecture and technology works, they've really focused on the speed of query results and making sure that we can do what we need to do quickly. Devo is pulling back information in a fast fashion, based on real-time events."
"Even if it's a relatively technical tool or platform, it's very intuitive and graphical. It's very appealing in terms of the user interface. The UI has a graphically interface with the raw data in a table. The table can be as big as you want it, depending on your use case. You can easily get a report combining your data, along with calculations and graphical dashboards. You don't need a lot of training, because the UI is relatively very intuitive."
"The most valuable features are its ingestion of logs and raising of alerts based on those logs."
"The most valuable feature is the security that it provides."
"The development of use cases on the SSA console is quite user friendly. This means that the security analyst or the researcher does not have to learn another language."
"The most valuable feature of RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets are the alerts and correlations tools."
"It gives the capability for the incident response team to correlate logs to identify any kind of problem like malware and incidents in a general sense, both for logs and packets."
"The packet capture aspect of it is a valuable feature because it is quite different from a traditional SIEM solution that only carries out investigations based on captured logs."
"What we are mainly using are the RSA concentrator, RSA Decoder, Archiver, Broker, and Log Decoder."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to write rules and triggers for network communication, and then being able to investigate based on that."
"Where Devo has room for improvement is the data ingestion and parsing. We tend to have to work with the Devo support team to bring on and ingest new sources of data."
"Technical support could be better."
"The overall performance of extraction could be a lot faster, but that's a common problem in this space in general. Also, the stock or default alerting and detecting options could definitely be broader and more all-encompassing. The fact that they're not is why we had to write all our own alerts."
"There's always room to reduce the learning curve over how to deal with events and machine data. They could make the machine data simpler."
"There are some issues from an availability and functionality standpoint, meaning the tool is somewhat slow. There were some slow response periods over the past six to nine months, though it has yet to impact us terribly as we are a relatively small shop. We've noticed it, however, so Devo could improve the responsiveness."
"One major area for improvement for Devo... is to provide more capabilities around pre-built monitoring. They're working on integrations with different types of systems, but that integration needs to go beyond just onboarding to the platform. It needs to include applications, out-of-the-box, that immediately help people to start monitoring their systems. Such applications would include dashboards and alerts, and then people could customize them for their own needs so that they aren't starting from a blank slate."
"The price is one problem with Devo."
"Some third-parties don't have specific API connectors built, so we had to work with Devo to get the logs and parse the data using custom parsers, rather than an out-of-the-box solution."
"Security needs improvement."
"Sometimes, it gives me static when integrating Windows-based systems. It should produce a precise log of sorts as to where the problem is. For example, a few days ago because of the McAfee application firewall, I couldn't get access to the particular Windows machine. So, my team and I had to figure out by ourselves that there was a virus responsible for the obstacle. This solution should trigger a meaningful log or message indicating the reason the user or implementer can't get into the machine."
"There is no support for this product in this country, so problems have to be resolved through global technical teams."
"Health monitoring of the event sources and devices."
"The multi-tenant capabilities are lagging compared to IBM QRadar."
"They should implement algorithms to digest that data and produce additional, more advanced reporting, alerting and support of internal security teams."
"It is not so easy to customize this product."
"More customizability is required, which is something that they need to improve on."
Devo is ranked 17th in Log Management with 21 reviews while NetWitness Platform is ranked 19th in Log Management with 36 reviews. Devo is rated 8.4, while NetWitness Platform is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Devo writes "Keeps 400 days of hot data, covers our cloud products, and has a high ingestion rate and super easy log integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetWitness Platform writes "Can find out if there is lateral movement, but integration and workflow need improvement". Devo is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Sentinel, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas NetWitness Platform is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, RSA enVision, IBM Security QRadar, Cisco Secure Network Analytics and Microsoft Sentinel. See our Devo vs. NetWitness Platform report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors and best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.
