No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Hunters vs IBM Security QRadar comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
120
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (4th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Hunters
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
32nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (37th), SOC as a Service (5th)
IBM Security QRadar
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
218
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (5th), Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (2nd), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (3rd), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (11th), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (4th), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (8th)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
VikramSingh8 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Delivery Manager at Accenture
Advanced detectors streamline threat monitoring with many use cases
Hunter support is functional yet not exceptional. Their support engineers could be more advanced and faster in providing solutions. Their turnaround time could improve to match other tools. When feedback is provided, they consider it and indicate if it is in the development stage. They commit to fixing bugs and developing the module or feature, however, take quite a lot of time. I would rate their customer support as needing improvement. Another area needing improvement is integration capabilities, as they are not yet fully compatible. Users still have to rely on third-party software or integration tools. Furthermore, they should incorporate more GenAI capabilities, a current buzzword, and enable predictive use cases. Their tools should be capable of reading the environment, making adaptations, and automatically tweaking settings as per client or environmental needs, similar to capabilities provided by other SIEM tools.
HarshBhardiya - PeerSpot reviewer
SOC Engineer at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
Have managed daily asset and alert monitoring effectively but have encountered limitations with manual processes and interface usability
It's still very manual and doesn't work on its own. It's still in an early stage and not on par where we can consider it a really successful detection system. The accuracy is not there. The UI could be better when compared to Sentinels where we can use flags and tagging. It could be much more user-friendly. IBM Security QRadar has all features and is fully competitive with other SIEM tools, but when it comes to user-friendliness, a new user takes time to get used to it. More intuitive, user-friendly interfaces and more helpful documentation would be beneficial. The query searching and data fetching could be faster. In large to very large organizations with around 5,000 or 6,000 assets or beyond, even with proper configurations and RAM and hardware backing up, the query is fairly slow.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"These days it's machine-learning technology and behavior-based analytics features that make us more secure."
"I have found the solution to be very easy in respect of the integration and configurable."
"On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a nine."
"The protection offered by this product is good, as is the endpoint reporting."
"Monitoring is most valuable."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks's ability to block sophisticated threats in real time is quite good and is on par with SentinelOne's."
"Cortex XDR alerts us on the dashboard when there's a threat, which allows us to restrict that user and helps secure our infrastructure."
"The normal protection was really effective, and we detected situations that if we didn't have Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, it's highly likely that we would have been affected, but it protected the infrastructure."
"Hunter proactively provides a set of five to six hundred use cases, categorized based on cloud use cases, endpoint use cases, parameter use cases, and malicious use cases."
"Other SIEM tools base their license cost on the volume of data processed, often charging by how much TB or GB data is processed. Hunter, however, charges based on the number of data sources and the number of data entities integrated, which saves money."
"The most valuable feature is the machine learning module."
"This solution has excellent security analytics."
"The scalability is very good. It's not a problem."
"It helps because you don't need an army to execute the project when you do the PoC, and when finally going to production."
"I like the graphical interface. It's so good and easy."
"We've found the solution to be scalable."
"What I like the most about it is that you can very easily install and configure it. As compared to other SIEM solutions, for which you need to know and do a lot more to prepare your SIEM environment, QRadar is much simpler to install and configure. There are various options in the Admin console. In the Admin tab, you can design dashboards and view various graphs. It has a lot of attractive features, and you don't need to configure everything on your own."
"The product can scale."
 

Cons

"The solution should offer more dashboards and they should be better customized."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"I would like to see some additional features related to email protection included."
"In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are the big company, so they can improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved."
"However, if you do not have Palo Alto in your environment, you are paying these additional services just for Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, so it is not a cost-effective solution."
"If he is using a smaller company, he can depend on some other tools because Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a bit expensive."
"It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue."
"A little bit more automation would be nice."
"Hunter support is functional yet not exceptional."
"Hunter support is functional yet not exceptional. Their support engineers could be more advanced and faster in providing solutions."
"From a functionality point of view, there are issues sometimes."
"The solution is difficult to understand in the beginning and has complex management configurations that can be improved."
"The technical support can be improved a little bit, and the price could be cheaper."
"It would be good, therefore, if there was a standard configuration by default that was offered or proposed during install or configuration to meet PCI requirements, e.g. log archive duration set by default to one year for each device added."
"They have to build more quantitative monitoring, profiling, and make it more predictive."
"It is very expensive; very expensive."
"It should have built-in blocking capability."
"The threat intelligence functionality can be better. In addition, it can have more monitoring capabilities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is present, but when compared to other competitive products, I would say it is not less expensive; however, when all of the other added values are considered, the price is reasonable."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."
"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance."
"The tool's price is moderate."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."
"Every customer has to pay for a license because it doesn't work with what you get from a managed services provider."
"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."
Information not available
"The solution is priced fairly, there is a license for the solution, and we pay annually."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate IBM Security QRadar's pricing a five out of ten."
"Our licensing costs for this solution is on a yearly basis."
"On a scale of one to ten, I rate the price a one, where one is an extremely expensive product, and ten is a cheap product."
"There are different types of subscriptions available. We were on an annual subscription, but our customers typically choose the two years subscription option."
"The solution's pricing is based on the EPS model."
"It is a perpetual license that we have for the event collector. The licensing is done based on the number of events and flows that you receive on this particular device. These are perpetual licenses, which means once you purchase them, they don't expire, which means that the support to IBM is definitely renewed after every one year. We have an enterprise agreement with IBM, which puts the cost in a totally different category as compared to someone who is not an IBM partner and is approaching IBM for this solution. We were able to get massive discounts. To give you an idea, we recently purchased 30,000 event licenses, and it costs around $480,000. It is definitely not a cheap product. We have licenses for about 270,000 events per second and 3 million flows per second. All the appliances and their events and flows are basically clubbed together and charged or rather calculated through a single source. The console receives all the details from all the event processes that we have globally. So, the license that we have is a single license for 270,000 events per second and 3 million flows per second, but that can be managed centrally. I was only part of the secondary purchase, which was 30,000 events per second for about $480,000. You can calculate how much we paid for 270,000 events. Reducing its price would be a compromise. We have already used a lower-priced product in the form of NNT, but we had to get rid of it because it was not doing the job that we actually wanted to do. You get what you pay for."
"IBM's Qradar is not for small companie. Unfortunately, it would be 'overkill' to place it plainly. The pricing would be too much."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Manager, Enterprise Risk Consulting at a tech company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Jun 28, 2015
Qradar vs. ArcSight
Continuing with the SIEM posts we have done at Infosecnirvana, this post is a Head to head comparison of the two Industry leading SIEM products in the market – HP ArcSight and IBM QRadar Both the products have consistently been in the Gartner Leaders Quadrant. Both HP and IBM took over niche SIEM…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business48
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise56
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business93
Midsize Enterprise39
Large Enterprise107
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
What needs improvement with Hunters?
Hunter support is functional yet not exceptional. Their support engineers could be more advanced and faster in provid...
What is your primary use case for Hunters?
Hunter is a very new SIEM in the market. It is definitely a broad market for us as they are trying to establish a new...
What advice do you have for others considering Hunters?
Their knowledge base is good. When starting with Hunter, ensure you have one or two sessions to understand navigation...
What are the biggest differences between Securonix UEBA, Exabeam, and IBM QRadar?
It mostly depends on your use-cases and environment. Exabeam and Securonix have a stronger UEBA feature set, friendli...
What SOC product do you recommend?
For tools I’d recommend: -SIEM- LogRhythm -SOAR- Palo Alto XSOAR Doing commercial w/o both (or at least an XDR) is a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Security QRadar?
I am overall satisfied with the licensing cost for IBM Security QRadar.
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Hunters.AI
IBM QRadar, QRadar SIEM, QRadar UBA, QRadar on Cloud, IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
We're happy to support organizations like Booking.com, ChargePoint, Yext, Red Ventures and Cimpress who leverage Hunters SOC Platform to transform their security teams' operations.
Clients across multiple industries, such as energy, financial, retail, healthcare, government, communications, and education use QRadar.
Find out what your peers are saying about Splunk, IBM, Microsoft and others in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM). Updated: October 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.