Exabeam UEBA

Name: Exabeam UEBA
Brand: Exabeam
Rating: 3.8 (60 reviews)

Better Security. Faster Results.

Est 2003|Valuation $247.7M|Raised $706.6M

LinkedIn 52K|Website|Web traffic 79K|FTEs 782|HQ Broomfield, Colorado, US

MarketsSecurity Information and Event Management (SIEM)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

#### Exabeam vs Microsoft Sentinel - Where Sentinel can be preferable: - Organizations already invested in Microsoft licensing and operating primarily in Azure can realize shorter integration effort and centralization benefits. - Microsoft’s published ingestion-based pricing enables clearer ingestion cost modeling. - Where Exabeam can be preferable: - Organizations prioritizing a UEBA-centric investigation workflow and risk scoring, particularly in heterogeneous (multi-vendor) telemetry environments, may find the platform’s analytics model aligned to their objectives. - Key procurement caution with Sentinel: while some marketing language may suggest UEBA is included, total costs typically depend on ingestion and feature usage; procurement should model expected data volumes and retention. #### Exabeam vs Securonix - Both vendors are commonly considered in UEBA evaluations and have overlapping analytics capabilities. Buyers should compare deployment models, SOAR breadth, analytics architecture, scalability, and total cost in proof-of-value exercises. #### Exabeam vs Splunk (ES/UBA) - Splunk generally offers broader data platform flexibility and highly customizable analytics, which can be advantageous for complex or custom use cases. Exabeam is more purpose-built around behavior analytics and investigation workflows. Buyers should evaluate engineering overhead and total cost against functional needs.

Adoption trends / market signals (cautious)

Peer-review and engagement metrics provide signal on vendor awareness and usage within specific communities, but they do not constitute definitive market-share measures.
The Exabeam + LogRhythm combination reflects consolidation activity in the security operations market; consolidation can increase portfolio breadth but may also introduce integration and roadmap uncertainty that procurement teams should evaluate.

	Exabeam UEBA (Exabeam Fusion / New-Scale)	Microsoft Sentinel (UEBA)	Securonix UEBA
Starting Price	Typically quote-based; a public procurement framework listing is available (reference pricing omitted)	Public pricing is ingestion-based (metered by data volume in the cloud provider's marketplace); total cost typically driven by ingestion and retention	Quote-based; vendor and partner pricing varies by deployment model
Best For	Organizations prioritizing behavior-driven detection and SOC investigation workflows, and prepared to invest in tuning and platform work	Organizations heavily invested in Microsoft cloud and security licensing seeking native integrations	Organizations seeking UEBA-focused analytics and packaging; evaluate integration and deployment models
Key Strength	UEBA-focused analytics, investigation timelines, and risk-scoring approaches	Native integration with Microsoft identity and cloud services, published ingestion-based pricing options	UEBA analytics breadth and packaged analytics-focused positioning
Key Weakness	Migration risk between platform generations; operational tuning requirements and support variability reported	Cost predictability can be affected by ingestion and retention; greater value when used within a Microsoft-centric ecosystem	Pricing and deployment complexity vary; prospective buyers should validate scaling and ingestion models

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Exabeam vs Microsoft Sentinel

Where Sentinel can be preferable:
- Organizations already invested in Microsoft licensing and operating primarily in Azure can realize shorter integration effort and centralization benefits.
- Microsoft’s published ingestion-based pricing enables clearer ingestion cost modeling.
Where Exabeam can be preferable:
- Organizations prioritizing a UEBA-centric investigation workflow and risk scoring, particularly in heterogeneous (multi-vendor) telemetry environments, may find the platform’s analytics model aligned to their objectives.
Key procurement caution with Sentinel: while some marketing language may suggest UEBA is included, total costs typically depend on ingestion and feature usage; procurement should model expected data volumes and retention.

Exabeam vs Securonix

Both vendors are commonly considered in UEBA evaluations and have overlapping analytics capabilities. Buyers should compare deployment models, SOAR breadth, analytics architecture, scalability, and total cost in proof-of-value exercises.

Exabeam vs Splunk (ES/UBA)

Splunk generally offers broader data platform flexibility and highly customizable analytics, which can be advantageous for complex or custom use cases. Exabeam is more purpose-built around behavior analytics and investigation workflows. Buyers should evaluate engineering overhead and total cost against functional needs.

Adoption trends / market signals (cautious)

Peer-review and engagement metrics provide signal on vendor awareness and usage within specific communities, but they do not constitute definitive market-share measures.
The Exabeam + LogRhythm combination reflects consolidation activity in the security operations market; consolidation can increase portfolio breadth but may also introduce integration and roadmap uncertainty that procurement teams should evaluate.

	Exabeam UEBA (Exabeam Fusion / New-Scale)	Microsoft Sentinel (UEBA)	Securonix UEBA
Starting Price	Typically quote-based; a public procurement framework listing is available (reference pricing omitted)	Public pricing is ingestion-based (metered by data volume in the cloud provider's marketplace); total cost typically driven by ingestion and retention	Quote-based; vendor and partner pricing varies by deployment model
Best For	Organizations prioritizing behavior-driven detection and SOC investigation workflows, and prepared to invest in tuning and platform work	Organizations heavily invested in Microsoft cloud and security licensing seeking native integrations	Organizations seeking UEBA-focused analytics and packaging; evaluate integration and deployment models
Key Strength	UEBA-focused analytics, investigation timelines, and risk-scoring approaches	Native integration with Microsoft identity and cloud services, published ingestion-based pricing options	UEBA analytics breadth and packaged analytics-focused positioning
Key Weakness	Migration risk between platform generations; operational tuning requirements and support variability reported	Cost predictability can be affected by ingestion and retention; greater value when used within a Microsoft-centric ecosystem	Pricing and deployment complexity vary; prospective buyers should validate scaling and ingestion models