We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Nagios Log Server 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."There are other third-party plugins that we can use."
"The visibility it gives you into your infrastructure has been great."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very stable, easy to get going, and easy to manage. It is also easy to review all incidents."
"Customer service is very good and very helpful."
"It is a very good SIEM."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is how it monitors the real network. That is its leading security feature."
"Blocks of predefined conditions can be used to configure detection rules without having to write complicated script."
"It's hard for me to pinpoint any one feature that's most valuable because it is all about consuming logs and analyzing them. We started using QRadar UBA because we needed something that could analyze Linux authentication information. Other products take care of the Windows platform."
"One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"The product is scalable."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"It needs more resilience and functionality."
"I would like to see some artificial intelligence and alternative solutions."
"It doesn't have a SOAR system by default. You need to purchase it additionally, which is the main problem with QRadar."
"The quoting and the dashboard session could be improved. It should be more user-friendly."
"The interface is very old. IBM should remake it into a more modern interface."
"The solution is difficult to understand in the beginning and has complex management configurations that can be improved."
"The tool is very complicated. One place for improvement would be to have a more user-friendly interface. Having better support in Spanish would be cool."
"There should be an extension where we can get the reports. This could be an extension to the dashboard with the Guardian or another product with limited technology, for example IPS. Now, we only have IBM. Basically, it needs more and more integration models."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
"The support could be better."
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Nagios Log Server is ranked 40th in Log Management with 5 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas Nagios Log Server is most compared with Wazuh, Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng and Security Onion. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Nagios Log Server 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.