We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Identity and Splunk User Behavior Analytics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is easy to set up. Based on the number of devices you would like to set up, you can use scripts, Group Policy, etc. It takes five minutes to set up."
"It automates routine testing and helps automate the finding of high-value alerts."
"The feature I like the most about Defender for Identity is the entity tags. They give you the ability to identify sensitive accounts, devices, and groups. You also have honeytoken entities, which are devices that are identified as "bait" for fraudulent actors."
"This solution has advanced a lot over the last few years."
"The basic security monitoring at its core feature is the most valuable aspect. But also the investigative parts, the historical logging of events over the network are extremely interesting because it gives an in-depth insight into the history of account activity that is really easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to export."
"All the integration it has with different Microsoft packages, like Teams and Office, is good."
"Defender for Identity has not affected the end-user experience."
"The solution offers excellent visibility into threats."
"This is a good security product."
"The most valuable features are the indexing and powerful search features."
"The solution is fast, flexible, and easy to use."
"The most valuable features are its data aggregation and the ability to automatically identify a number of threats, then suggest recommended actions upon them."
"It is a solution that helps test and measure customer satisfaction."
"Splunk is more user-friendly than some competing solutions we tried."
"It's easily scalable."
"The solution is extremely scalable. Our customers are regularly scaling up after installing Splunk."
"One potential area for improvement could be exploring flexibility in the installation of Microsoft Defender for Identity agents."
"The solution could be better at using group-managed access and they could replace it with broad-based access controls."
"The technical support needs significant improvement. Documentation for more minor issues in the form of guides or walkthroughs could help to resolve this issue. The number of tickets raised would decrease, removing some pressure from the support team and making it easier to clear the remaining tickets."
"Defender for Identity gives us visibility, but we often get false positives from Azure that take us down the garden path. We go through 30 incidents each day and most of those are false positives or benign positive alerts. Occasionally, we get true positive alerts."
"There is no option to remedy an issue directly from the console. If we see an alert, we can't fix it from the console. Instead, we must depend on other Microsoft products, such as MDE. That is a significant drawback. It simply works as a scanner, which can sometimes put enough load on the sensors. Immediate actions should be possible from the dashboard because. It can prevent issues from spreading further."
"The tracking instance needs to be configured appropriately."
"The impact of the sensors on the domain controllers can be quite high depending on your loads. I don't know if there's any room for improvement there, but that's one of the things that might be improved."
"And when you are working in a priority IP address, Identity is not able to know that those IPs are from the company. It sees that the IPs are from Taiwan or from Hong Kong or from India, even though they are internal IPs, resulting in a lot of false positives."
"I would like improved downward integration with other tools such as McAfee and other GCP solutions."
"I'm not aware of any lacking features."
"The initial setup was complex because some of the configurations that we required needed customization."
"We'd like the ability to do custom searches."
"We want to have an automated system for bot hunting that enables us to detect anomalies predictively based on historical data. It would be helpful if Splunk included process mining as an alternative option. We have a threat workflow, but it would be useful if we could supplement that with some process mining capabilities over time."
"Currently, a lot of network operations need improvement. We still need people to handle incidents. Our vision is to leverage status and convert it directly from the network devices. It would be ideal if we could take action using APIs and API code and remove manual processes."
"There are occasional bugs."
"The ability to do more complicated data investigation would be a welcome addition for pros, though the functionality now gives most people what they need."
More Microsoft Defender for Identity Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Splunk User Behavior Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Identity is ranked 1st in Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) with 13 reviews while Splunk User Behavior Analytics is ranked 2nd in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 18 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Identity is rated 9.0, while Splunk User Behavior Analytics is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Identity writes "Offers robust protection from insider threats, but the customer support is poor". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Splunk User Behavior Analytics writes "Easy to configure and easy to use solution that integrates with many applications and scripts ". Microsoft Defender for Identity is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID Protection, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Microsoft Entra Verified ID, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas Splunk User Behavior Analytics is most compared with Darktrace, IBM Security QRadar, Cynet, Exabeam Fusion SIEM and Varonis Datalert. See our Microsoft Defender for Identity vs. Splunk User Behavior Analytics report.
We monitor all Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) 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.
