Technical review by Volodymyr Garbar, CISO & Tech Lead
Updated: 16 October 2026
Exabeam competitors include Microsoft Sentinel, Securonix, Splunk Enterprise Security, Elastic Security, and Google Security Operations. These platforms offer different approaches to SIEM, behavioral analytics, threat detection, and response automation. Exabeam itself does not publish a standard public price list, while some alternatives offer usage-based pricing or published starting rates.
The comparison has become more interesting since Exabeam merged with LogRhythm in 2024. Exabeam now has both cloud-native and self-hosted SIEM options, along with behavioral analytics, automated investigations, and AI-assisted security operations.
That makes the decision a little more complicated than choosing between two SIEM products.
You might be looking to replace Exabeam's behavioral analytics. You might want to move away from a self-hosted LogRhythm deployment. Or perhaps the platform is working reasonably well, but your analysts are overwhelmed with alerts and have little time left for threat hunting.
Those situations call for different solutions.
Need more security operations capacity without another platform migration?
Q-Sec Advanced Detection & Response provides managed detection, proactive threat hunting, and incident response using security technologies appropriate to your environment.
The main Exabeam alternatives cover SIEM, behavioral analytics, and security operations, although their capabilities and deployment models differ.
| Provider | Main approach | Best fit |
|---|---|---|
| Exabeam | SIEM, UEBA, automated investigation, and AI-assisted security operations | Teams prioritizing behavioral analytics and threat investigation |
| Microsoft Sentinel | Cloud-native SIEM with Microsoft security integration | Microsoft-heavy environments |
| Securonix | Cloud-native SIEM and behavioral threat analytics | Organizations focused on UEBA and advanced threat detection |
| Splunk Enterprise Security | Enterprise SIEM, security analytics, and detection engineering | Large environments with established security operations teams |
| Elastic Security | SIEM, search, analytics, and endpoint security | Teams wanting flexible deployment and analytics |
| Google Security Operations | Cloud-native SIEM, threat intelligence, and response automation | Organizations handling large volumes of security telemetry |
Exabeam provides security operations technology covering SIEM, behavioral analytics, threat detection, investigation, and response, with both cloud-native and self-hosted options.
The company completed its merger with LogRhythm in July 2024. The combined business operates under the Exabeam name and continues to support the self-hosted LogRhythm SIEM alongside Exabeam's cloud-native products.
Its current portfolio includes several important capabilities.
Exabeam New-Scale SIEM provides cloud-native security log collection, search, threat detection, investigation, and response.
New-Scale Fusion brings SIEM and behavioral analytics together, with automated workflows and Exabeam Nova AI agents supporting analysts during investigations.
Exabeam's Threat Center provides a common environment for reviewing alerts, investigating suspicious behavior, and managing cases. Its behavioral analytics help identify unusual activity involving users, devices, and other entities.
Exabeam has long been associated with user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA).
Rather than relying only on predefined detection rules, behavioral analytics establish patterns of normal activity and identify potentially suspicious deviations.
For example, a privileged account might suddenly access unusual systems, authenticate from an unfamiliar location, and download data outside its normal working pattern.
Each event may look relatively ordinary on its own. Together, they deserve investigation.
Behavioral analytics can help analysts connect those signals and prioritize the activity.
The combined company also maintains the self-hosted LogRhythm SIEM platform.
This matters for organizations that need greater control over deployment or prefer to operate security infrastructure themselves.
It also means that older comparisons treating Exabeam and LogRhythm as separate competing vendors are outdated.
When evaluating Exabeam today, buyers should clarify which platform and deployment model they are actually comparing.
Organizations consider Exabeam alternatives when they need different deployment options, pricing, integrations, analytics capabilities, or a less demanding security operations model.
Exabeam has a substantial feature set. But buying advanced security technology does not automatically give a company the resources to operate it.
SIEM costs can increase as organizations collect more cloud, identity, endpoint, and network telemetry.
The cost depends on the commercial model, data volume, retention, and the capabilities included.
Organizations comparing Exabeam with Sentinel, Splunk, or Elastic should calculate the total cost of running the platform rather than compare subscription quotes alone.
Some organizations want to move from self-hosted infrastructure to a cloud-native SIEM.
Others need more control over where security data is processed and stored.
Exabeam now supports both cloud-native and self-hosted approaches through its portfolio, so the question is whether its available options fit the organization's specific requirements.
A security team may want better integration with its endpoint tools, different detection engineering workflows, or more control over investigation automation.
Behavioral analytics can be valuable, but they still require tuning, context, and analysts who understand the results.
During procurement, ask vendors to demonstrate how they investigate the same incident rather than compare their advertised detection counts.
This is often the more difficult problem.
An organization may own a capable SIEM and still lack enough analysts to investigate alerts around the clock.
Moving to another SIEM will not necessarily change that.
A managed SOC or MDR service may be a better investment when the organization primarily needs people to operate its security tools and respond to incidents.
Microsoft Sentinel, Securonix, Splunk, Elastic Security, and Google Security Operations are credible Exabeam alternatives. Each offers a different balance of analytics, deployment, integrations, and security operations capabilities.
Microsoft Sentinel is a cloud-native SIEM offering security analytics, threat hunting, investigation, and response automation.
It is particularly relevant for organizations already using Microsoft Defender, Entra ID, Azure, and Microsoft 365.
Sentinel also supports third-party security data sources, so it is not limited to Microsoft technologies.
Where Sentinel may be a better fit: Organizations that want cloud-native SIEM capabilities and already have substantial Microsoft security investments.
What to check: Coverage for non-Microsoft data sources, migration of existing detections, automation requirements, and the operational resources needed to maintain the deployment.
Pricing: Microsoft publishes consumption-based pricing and commitment options, with costs depending on data volumes, regions, and configuration.
Securonix is one of the more directly comparable alternatives for organizations prioritizing behavioral threat detection.
Its security operations platform combines SIEM capabilities with analytics designed to identify suspicious user and entity activity.
This makes it relevant when an organization is evaluating Exabeam primarily for UEBA, insider threat detection, compromised credentials, or other behavior-based use cases.
Where Securonix may be a better fit: Organizations prioritizing cloud-native security analytics and behavioral detection.
What to check: Detection accuracy, data integration, investigation workflows, response automation, and the resources required to tune behavioral models.
Pricing: A customized vendor quote is required for an accurate comparison. No verified standard public starting price was found.
Splunk Enterprise Security is a long-established SIEM platform used for threat detection, investigation, security analytics, and SOC workflows.
Its strength is flexibility. Organizations can collect and analyze large volumes of security data, build custom detections, and develop investigations around their specific environments.
That flexibility also brings operational responsibilities.
Splunk requires expertise in data onboarding, search, detection engineering, and ongoing platform administration.
Where Splunk may be a better fit: Organizations with experienced SOC teams that need extensive customization and security analytics capabilities.
What to check: Data ingestion costs, licensing, detection engineering requirements, and the work involved in migrating Exabeam behavioral analytics.
Pricing: Enterprise Security requires a customized quote. Splunk's commercial arrangements depend on the products, licensing model, and deployment.
For a wider comparison, see our Splunk Competitors and Alternatives guide.
Elastic Security combines SIEM, security analytics, threat detection, and endpoint protection.
Its search capabilities and deployment flexibility make it interesting for organizations that want more control over their analytics environment.
Elastic offers cloud and self-managed options, although available features and costs vary by deployment and subscription.
Where Elastic may be a better fit: Organizations with engineering resources that want flexible security analytics and deployment options.
What to check: UEBA requirements, detection coverage, infrastructure management, and whether the chosen subscription includes the required security features.
Pricing: Elastic publishes Security Serverless rates starting at $0.09 per ingested GB for Security Analytics Essentials and $0.11 per ingested GB for Complete. Retention and other usage charges apply. These are published starting rates, not complete deployment prices.
Google Security Operations is a cloud-native security operations platform combining security analytics, threat intelligence, detection, investigation, and response.
It is relevant for organizations that collect large amounts of security telemetry and want cloud-based investigation capabilities.
Google SecOps also provides automation and integration options for security workflows.
Where Google SecOps may be a better fit: Organizations prioritizing large-scale security analytics, cloud delivery, and integrated threat intelligence.
What to check: Data ingestion, detection engineering, integrations, retention, response workflows, and regional processing arrangements.
Pricing: Google publishes an ingestion-based commercial model and product packages but directs buyers to sales for full pricing. Its current offering includes one year of security telemetry retention within the published package terms.
Microsoft Sentinel may be more attractive for organizations with substantial Microsoft security investments, while Exabeam may appeal to teams prioritizing behavioral analytics and investigation workflows.
Both platforms support SIEM and modern security operations.
Sentinel integrates with the Microsoft security ecosystem and offers cloud-native detection, hunting, and response automation.
Exabeam combines SIEM capabilities with behavioral analytics, dynamic risk scoring, automated investigation timelines, and AI-assisted workflows.
An organization choosing between them should examine how each platform handles its most important detection scenarios.
Consider a compromised administrator account.
Can the platform identify suspicious authentication patterns, connect them with endpoint and cloud activity, and produce an investigation that analysts can act on?
Also ask how much detection tuning is required and which response actions can be automated.
The answer depends on the environment and the team's expertise. Neither platform should be selected solely because it advertises more AI functionality.
Exabeam and Securonix are both relevant for behavioral threat detection, but the better choice depends on the organization's data sources, detection requirements, and investigation workflows.
Both are worth evaluating for suspicious user activity, compromised identities, insider threats, and other behavior-based security scenarios.
The useful comparison is how each platform builds behavioral context and turns it into actionable investigations.
For example, ask both vendors to demonstrate a privileged account compromise involving unusual access, lateral movement, and suspicious data transfers.
Review how the platform establishes normal behavior, prioritizes anomalies, correlates events, and presents evidence.
Also examine false positives and the effort required to maintain useful behavioral detections.
A platform that produces more alerts is not necessarily detecting more meaningful threats.
A managed SOC can take responsibility for security monitoring, investigation, and response, but it does not automatically replace Exabeam's SIEM or behavioral analytics software.
Exabeam provides technology for security operations. A managed SOC provides operational capacity.
Many organizations need both.
If a company already has a functioning Exabeam deployment but lacks analysts to operate it, replacing the platform may be unnecessary.
It may make more sense to retain the existing technology and work with a provider that can support its security operations, subject to integration and service compatibility.
Other organizations may prefer to move to a managed service model and reconsider their technology stack at the same time.
Q-Sec Q-SOC provides continuous security monitoring, investigation, and response. Its Advanced Detection & Response service adds proactive threat hunting and incident-response capabilities.
Q-Sec is therefore a managed security operations alternative for organizations evaluating the work performed around Exabeam, rather than a direct replacement for the Exabeam platform itself.
Already using Exabeam but need more SOC capacity? Talk to Q-Sec about your current tools, monitoring requirements, and incident-response responsibilities.
Exabeam does not publish a standard public starting price for its current SIEM portfolio, so buyers need a customized quote. Some alternatives, particularly Elastic Security and Microsoft Sentinel, provide more publicly accessible pricing information.
The pricing models differ enough that a simple monthly subscription comparison can be misleading.
| Platform | Public pricing information |
|---|---|
| Exabeam | Customized quote; no verified standard public price |
| Microsoft Sentinel | Usage-based and commitment pricing; regional rates published |
| Securonix | Customized quote |
| Splunk Enterprise Security | Customized quote |
| Elastic Security Serverless | From $0.09/GB ingested for Essentials or $0.11/GB for Complete, plus other charges |
| Google Security Operations | Ingestion-based packages; contact sales for full pricing |
Elastic's rates are official published minimums, not an estimated Exabeam-equivalent monthly cost. Microsoft's actual charges depend on its pricing configuration and region.
When requesting proposals, organizations should provide vendors with the same requirements:
There is also the cost of operating the platform.
A SIEM that requires several dedicated engineers may have a very different total cost from one delivered with substantial managed support.
For a broader European pricing context, see Cybersecurity Pricing in Europe.
European organizations should assess security monitoring coverage, data processing, retention, incident-response evidence, and contractual responsibilities when replacing Exabeam.
A new SIEM can improve detection and investigation, but the migration must preserve the security capabilities required by the organization.
The NIS2 Directive establishes cybersecurity risk-management and incident-reporting obligations for covered entities.
SIEM platforms can support these requirements by collecting security events, identifying suspicious activity, and maintaining evidence for incident investigations.
But the organization also needs appropriate processes for incident assessment, response, escalation, and reporting.
A SIEM product alone does not establish NIS2 compliance.
During migration, organizations should verify that important detection rules, log sources, and investigation records remain available.
The Digital Operational Resilience Act establishes ICT risk-management and operational resilience requirements for covered financial entities.
SIEM and security operations services can support incident detection, investigation, and documentation.
Financial entities should also review ICT service dependencies, contracts, and incident coordination arrangements.
The technology may change, but the organization's regulatory responsibilities remain.
Security telemetry may contain personal data, authentication activity, and sensitive operational information.
European buyers should review data-processing agreements, hosting locations, international transfers, retention settings, and access controls.
Exabeam's cloud-native products and competing platforms may offer different regional deployment and processing arrangements.
These should be checked for the specific product and contract rather than inferred from the vendor's general European presence.
An Exabeam migration should preserve detection coverage, investigation workflows, log sources, and response capabilities while the new platform is tested and introduced.
The first step is identifying exactly which Exabeam products are being replaced.
A migration from New-Scale SIEM may differ considerably from replacing a self-hosted LogRhythm deployment or an Exabeam analytics layer connected to another SIEM.
A sensible migration plan includes five stages.
Document data sources, integrations, behavioral analytics, detection rules, dashboards, response playbooks, and reporting requirements.
Identify which capabilities are essential and which are rarely used.
Review the threats the current platform is expected to detect.
Pay particular attention to compromised credentials, privileged account abuse, lateral movement, and other scenarios where behavioral analytics may play an important role.
The replacement platform may use different data models, query languages, and correlation methods.
Existing detection logic may need to be rewritten and tested.
Where practical, operate the old and new platforms in parallel during testing.
Compare detection results, investigation quality, alert routing, and data availability.
Determine who will maintain detections, investigate alerts, handle incidents, and resolve integration failures after the migration.
If an external SOC will take responsibility for some of this work, the scope should be documented before the old platform is retired.
The right Exabeam competitor depends on whether your organization wants to improve its SIEM technology, behavioral analytics, or the way security operations are delivered.
Exabeam itself remains a credible option, especially for organizations that value behavioral analytics and AI-assisted investigations.
And if the real problem is that nobody has enough time to investigate alerts properly, a new SIEM may not solve it.
In that case, managed SOC or MDR services deserve a place in the evaluation.
Need a team to handle detection and response?
Contact Q-Sec to discuss your existing security stack and whether Q-SOC or ADR would be appropriate.
Exabeam competitors include Microsoft Sentinel, Securonix, Splunk Enterprise Security, Elastic Security, and Google Security Operations. They differ in behavioral analytics, SIEM architecture, automation, deployment, and pricing.
Microsoft Sentinel suits many Microsoft-heavy environments. Securonix is relevant for UEBA, while Splunk and Elastic offer extensive security analytics. The best option depends on detection requirements and operational resources.
No. Exabeam and LogRhythm completed their merger in July 2024. The combined company operates under the Exabeam name and maintains cloud-native and self-hosted SIEM offerings.
Exabeam offers both SIEM and UEBA capabilities. Its portfolio includes security log management, behavioral analytics, automated investigations, response workflows, and AI-assisted security operations.
It may be, but a direct comparison requires vendor quotes and expected data volumes. Sentinel publishes consumption-based pricing, while Exabeam generally requires customized commercial pricing.
Q-Sec can provide managed security monitoring, threat hunting, investigation, and response. It does not directly replace Exabeam's SIEM software, so organizations should assess their technology and service requirements separately.
No. NIS2 does not require a specific SIEM product. Covered entities must implement appropriate cybersecurity risk-management measures, which may include security monitoring and incident-response capabilities.