- BFSIBanking, Financial Services & Insurance
- HealthcareComing soon
- ManufacturingComing soon
- Retail & E-CommerceComing soon
Securonix UEBA
A stolen credential does nothing malformed — Securonix UEBA baselines every user and entity and scores the deviation, which is the only way to catch an attacker who logs in correctly and does permitted things.
Buy through TechBag
Same software. Better outcome — at a lower cost.
How it’s rated
Full scoreboard ↓Data residency & processing — two different questions
Where data can live
BYO-AWS or BYO-Snowflake
Your own account holds the data lake, in an India region if you choose. ~450 Securonix engineers sit in Bangalore and Pune.
The hard limit
No air gap, ever
The analytics control plane is always Securonix’s cloud. BYO changes where data rests, not who operates the platform.
These are two different obligations and they lead to different vendors. “Data must stay in India” — BYO-Snowflake in an India region can answer that. “Must be air-gapped” — nothing Securonix offers answers it; see LogRhythm SIEM or Elastic Security. Get your compliance team to state which one, in writing, before shortlisting.
Quick answer
The Microsoft platform family
This page covers Securonix UEBA — the SIEM. The other pillars:
Quick facts
30-second orientation- Product
- Securonix UEBA
- Heritage
- Securonix's founding capability, since 2008
- Delivery
- Within Unified Defense SIEM — not a separate meter
- Detection basis
- Behavioural deviation, not signatures
- Baselining
- Individual AND peer-group
- Entities covered
- Users, machines, service accounts, apps
- Scoring
- Accumulated risk over time, not per-event
- Primary use case
- Insider threat and credential compromise
- Time to value
- 8–16 weeks of baselining before it is trusted
- The prerequisite
- Clean identity data — it exposes yours
Understand SIEM economics before you buy it
Most product pages skip this. We start here — so you buy a capability, not a buzzword.
What is it?
Analytics that learn how each user and entity normally behaves, then score deviation. It detects attacks that break no rule — an intruder using valid stolen credentials, or an insider misusing access they legitimately hold.
A two-copy SIEM architecture vs Elastic’s — the honest table
What consolidation actually replaces, dimension by dimension.
| Dimension | No / separate AI tool | Securonix UEBA |
|---|---|---|
| Retention | 90 days hot, then cold archive | 365 days hot, searchable |
| Old data | Restore ticket, then wait | Query it in the same session |
| Detection basis | Rules you wrote in advance | Baselines, and scored deviation |
| Stolen credentials | Nothing malformed to match | Behaviour is wrong, so it scores |
| New intelligence | Someone remembers to hunt | ATS sweeps history automatically |
| Data custody | Vendor's lake, always | BYO-AWS or BYO-Snowflake available |
| Honest caveat | — | No air gap; overage defaults to 120% |
| Best fit | — | Cloud-accepting, insider-risk exposed |
The deployment-freedom answer — for the deepest out-of-the-box content, weigh Splunk (TechBag sells it).
The five pieces of the platform
Vendors love diagrams; buyers need to know what they’re actually operating. Here’s the whole platform, demystified.
Behavioural baseline
Observes activity per user and entity over time to establish expected patterns: hours, systems, volumes, access paths. The baseline is individual, so an unusual-for-you action registers even when it is common across the organisation. Requires a genuine observation window before it means anything.
Peer-group analysis
Compares each entity against a dynamically constructed peer group rather than a global average. This is what suppresses the false positives that sink naive anomaly detection — routine behaviour for a role stays quiet, the same behaviour from outside that role does not.
Entity coverage
Baselines machines, service accounts and applications alongside people. Service accounts matter disproportionately: they hold broad standing privilege, rarely change behaviour legitimately, and their compromise is a common and under-monitored path.
Risk scoring engine
Deviations add to a running risk score per entity instead of firing an alert each time. A slow chain of individually unremarkable actions surfaces as a rising score, which is precisely the pattern rule-based detection misses.
Analyst timeline
Presents accumulated behaviour as a chronological narrative for the entity, with underlying events attached. Because UEBA and the log data share one platform, the analyst moves from score to raw evidence without leaving the investigation.
One workspace where people meet, make, and share — work moving in one place, not emailed between tools.
Twelve capabilities. Draft, analyse, automate.
Sentinel collects, correlates and stores security telemetry — and the tier each table lands in is what sets your bill. Here are the five pieces that matter. Part of Defender XDR, managed in one portal, with Security Copilot AI.
Identity telemetry ingest
Consumes authentication, directory and access-management data as the behavioural substrate.
Non-human entity tracking
Baselines service accounts, machines and applications, not only human users.
Business context enrichment
Attaches role, department and joiner-mover-leaver status to sharpen what counts as anomalous.
Access pattern capture
Records which systems and data each entity habitually reaches, and how often.
Individual baselining
Learns each entity's own normal rather than applying a shared threshold.
Peer-group comparison
Judges behaviour against dynamically built peer groups to suppress role-normal noise.
Cumulative risk scoring
Accumulates deviation into a rising score instead of firing on isolated events.
Insider threat detection
Surfaces misuse by people whose access is entirely legitimate.
Compromised account detection
Flags valid-credential misuse where no rule is broken and no signature matches.
Data movement anomaly
Detects volume and destination patterns inconsistent with the entity's history.
Entity investigation view
Assembles scored behaviour into a chronological narrative with evidence attached.
Risk-ranked queue
Orders analyst attention by accumulated entity risk rather than alert arrival time.
Watch Microsoft Defender in action
Endpoint protection, XDR and Security Copilot.
Solving Critical Security Problems with Behaviour Analytics
Behavioural detection, explained by Securonix.
Securonix Unified Defense SIEM Overview Demo
Where UEBA sits in the platform.
Hunting the Unknown: AI-Powered Analytics
What behavioural analytics surfaces.
Want a live, India-context walkthrough for your environment?
Book a guided demo →AI works best where the work already happens.
Here’s what genuinely sets Elastic Security apart (and where Splunk or Sentinel may fit better).
Stolen credentials do nothing malformed
This is the whole argument, and it is worth stating without hedging. Rule-based detection works by recognising things that are wrong: a signature, a known-bad destination, a malformed request, a policy violation. It is genuinely good at that. But an attacker who has bought or phished working credentials is not doing anything wrong in that sense. They authenticate correctly. They come from an address that looks reasonable. They access systems the account is entitled to access. Every step passes every check, because every step is permitted. There is no rule you can write that catches this without also catching the legitimate user, which is why organisations with excellent rule coverage still get breached through credential theft and still find out months later. Behavioural analytics is the only detection approach that engages with this properly, because it stops asking whether the action is allowed and starts asking whether it is characteristic. The account is entitled to open that share — but this account has never opened it, at this hour, at this volume, in three years of observed history.
Peer groups are what make anomaly detection usable
Naive anomaly detection fails in a predictable, well-documented way: everything is anomalous to something, so it alerts constantly, analysts stop reading it, and the capability is switched off within two quarters. Peer-group baselining is the mechanism that prevents this, and it deserves more attention than it usually gets in evaluations. Securonix constructs peer groups dynamically and evaluates behaviour against them, not against a global threshold. The effect is to encode organisational reality into the detection logic. When a member of the finance team opens the payroll system, that is unremarkable — their peers do it daily, and scoring it would generate noise forever. When someone from facilities opens the same system, the peer comparison makes it immediately conspicuous even though the raw action is identical. Same event, entirely different meaning, and only peer context distinguishes them. This is also why the quality of your identity and HR data matters so much: peer groups built on a stale directory produce comparisons that mean nothing.
Insider threat is the case that only behaviour addresses
Every other detection approach struggles with insiders for a structural reason: the insider is not evading your controls, they are using them. A departing employee copying a client list has valid credentials, legitimate access to the data, and a business reason to be in the system. Perimeter tooling sees nothing. Signature detection sees nothing. DLP may catch the transfer if the policy happens to cover that route, and frequently it does not. What is visible is the behavioural shift: access frequency rising, breadth expanding beyond the usual working set, volume moving at unusual hours, activity in systems adjacent to but outside the person's actual role. Individually each is explicable. Together, scored over weeks, they form a shape. Combined with joiner-mover-leaver context, the notice period becomes a period of heightened sensitivity rather than a blind spot. Handle this carefully: insider monitoring carries real employee-relations and privacy weight, and deployment should involve HR and legal from the start, not after the first alert.
It covers entities, not just people
The 'E' in UEBA is routinely undersold and it may be the most operationally valuable half. Service accounts are the softest target in most estates and the least watched. They hold broad standing privilege because they were provisioned generously years ago. They rarely have an owner who would notice a change. Their credentials sit in configuration files, scripts and CI pipelines, and rotate rarely if ever. And crucially, their legitimate behaviour is extremely consistent — a service account does the same thing on the same schedule, which makes deviation unusually easy to spot. A backup account that suddenly enumerates a directory, an integration account authenticating from a new source, a scheduled job running at an hour it has never run: these are strong signals precisely because the baseline is so tight. If your evaluation focuses only on user monitoring you are examining half the product, and arguably the less differentiated half.
The honest caveat — cloud-only, slow to trust, and data-quality dependent
Three limitations, stated plainly. First, Securonix UEBA is delivered within the cloud-native platform and inherits its constraint — there is no air-gapped deployment. If your mandate rules out SaaS entirely, this capability is unavailable regardless of how well it fits, and you should evaluate Exabeam's UEBA, available self-hosted through LogRhythm SIEM. Second, behavioural detection is slow to become trustworthy. Models need eight to sixteen weeks observing normal activity before their output should be acted upon, and early alerts will be noisy. Teams that respond by suppressing aggressively train away the sensitivity they paid for; teams that expect day-one value conclude the product does not work. Neither is a product fault, but both are common. Third, output quality is bounded by identity-data quality. Peer groups built on a stale directory, unowned service accounts and inaccurate role data produce comparisons that mean nothing. If your IAM hygiene is poor, fix that first — UEBA will otherwise amplify the mess rather than reveal it.
The honest positioning
Securonix UEBA is for organisations whose realistic threat model centres on credentials and people rather than malware — which, for most Indian enterprises with a meaningful workforce and a modern cloud estate, it does. It is strongest where insider risk is a board-level concern, where privileged and service accounts are numerous, and where a SOC exists to investigate what behavioural scoring surfaces. It is weak value where the security team is too small to act on nuanced signals, where identity data is unreliable, or where you need results this quarter. Against Exabeam — the only true peer, with comparable behavioural heritage — the decision usually turns on two things rather than model quality: Exabeam meters on monitored users while Securonix meters on GB ingested, and Exabeam retains a self-hosted path that Securonix does not. Which is cheaper is arithmetic specific to your headcount and telemetry volume, and worth actually calculating. TechBag sells both.
The numbers behind the platform
What your Securonix UEBA rollout looks like
Identity data readiness
Audit directory accuracy, service-account ownership and role data BEFORE deployment. Peer-group quality is bounded by this. Engage HR and legal on insider monitoring scope now — the governance conversation is harder once alerts are firing.
Telemetry connection
Connect identity, authentication, endpoint and data-access sources. These carry the behavioural signal; volume from elsewhere adds cost without adding baseline quality. Confirm service accounts and machine identities are in scope.
Baselining and calibration
Let models observe. Expect noise and resist over-suppression — this is where value is most commonly destroyed by impatience. Validate peer groups against how the organisation actually works, not the org chart.
Operationalise
Move from alert review to risk-ranked investigation. Establish a documented process for insider cases covering HR and legal involvement before you need it. Re-examine peer groups after every reorganisation.
The review scoreboard
Modelled on Gartner Peer Insights structure. *Counts and breakdowns are illustrative pending verified review collection.
Quick poll — what’s driving your evaluation?
Talk to an advisor“It found a compromised service account that had been active for months. Nothing it did broke a rule, which is exactly why nothing had flagged it.”
“Peer grouping is what made this workable. Our previous anomaly tool alerted on everything and we ended up ignoring it entirely.”
“Insider case during a notice period. The behavioural timeline was what made the investigation defensible to HR and legal.”
“Six weeks of noise before the baselines settled. Nobody warned us properly and we nearly abandoned it in month two.”
“Our directory data was worse than we admitted. The peer groups were meaningless until we fixed identity hygiene first.”
“Service account monitoring was the unexpected win. We did not buy it for that and it is where most of our value came from.”
“Strong analytics, but it assumes you have analysts. The scores mean nothing if nobody investigates them.”
“We compared it against Exabeam on cost. Our user count is high and our log volume is low, so the per-user meter won. Good product, wrong shape for us.”
Where everyone sits — the grids
Analyst firms bury this view behind paywalls, and G2 retired its Grid. So here’s TechBag’s synthesis of the endpoint-security (EDR/XDR) market — tap any vendor to see why it sits where it does.
TechBag Endpoint-Security (EDR/XDR) Grid
Execution strength vs product vision — the classic market map, minus the paywall.
Leader six consecutive times — the longest current run.
In-App Integration × Estate Breadth
The grid nobody publishes — detection efficacy & agent maturity vs Microsoft-estate fit and TCO.
Retention and behaviour solved; no air-gap answer.
Positions are TechBag’s illustrative synthesis of public review-platform data and vendor documentation — not a reproduction of any analyst graphic. Verify before relying on it.
Securonix UEBA vs the field
The SIEM field — honest lanes; the edge is deployment freedom and one agent for logs and endpoint. Deepest content and talent pool? Splunk. We say so (and sell it).
| Dimension | Securonix | Exabeam | Splunk Enterprise Security | Microsoft Sentinel | Elastic Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | UEBA-led cloud SIEM on a Snowflake lake | The other UEBA-led vendor | The reference SIEM | SIEM for Microsoft estates | Search-engine-native SIEM |
| Pricing axis | GB/day, tiered bands + commitment | Monitored users + sources | Ingest or workload — historically costly | Per GB ingested per day | Subscription tier + resources |
| Hot retention included | 365 days searchable as standard | By agreement | Priced by volume and term | 90 days, then charged | Yours to configure |
| Behavioural analytics | The founding capability | The founding capability | Available, add-on heritage | UEBA included | Entity risk scoring |
| Self-hosted / air-gapped | None — control plane is always their cloud | LogRhythm SIEM, genuinely on-prem | Cloud, on-prem or hybrid | SaaS only, on Azure | Self-managed, even air-gapped |
| Data custody option | BYO-AWS / BYO-Snowflake — your lake, their analytics | Fully self-hosted available | Fully self-hosted available | Microsoft-operated | Fully self-managed |
| Analyst standing (SIEM MQ 2025) | Leader, six consecutive times | Long-running MQ presence | Leader | Leader | Visionary, not Leader |
| Retrospective hunting | ATS — automatic on new intelligence | Manual hunts | Manual hunts, strong search | Manual hunts | Manual hunts |
| AI in the SOC | Sam — priced on measured analyst work | Nova — seven named agents | Cisco AI Assistant | Security Copilot + MCP | Elastic AI Assistant |
| The thing to plan around | Three CEOs in two years; 120% default overage | Two platforms post-merger | Cisco integration reshaping roadmap | Azure portal retires 31 Mar 2027 | You operate it unless you buy Cloud |
| Best fit | Cloud-accepting estates wanting retention solved | On-prem mandates, or user-based economics | Engineers who will build with it | Microsoft-standardised estates | Air-gapped, or existing ELK |
Does Securonix UEBA fit you?
Honest fit signals — because the fastest way to lose your trust is to pretend one product wins every scenario.
Choose Securonix if…
- ✓You want a year of hot searchable data included rather than negotiated as an upgrade
- ✓Behavioural detection is central to your threat model — insiders and stolen credentials
- ✓You want retrospective hunting automated rather than depending on someone remembering
- ✓Cloud is acceptable, and six consecutive Gartner Leader placements matter to your board
Choose Exabeam if…
- ✓You need genuine self-hosting (LogRhythm SIEM), or your headcount-to-log-volume ratio favours a per-user meter
Choose Splunk if…
- ✓You have engineers who will build with it and want the deepest content and largest talent pool
Choose Microsoft Sentinel if…
- ✓Your estate is Microsoft — first-party logs ingest free and SIEM shares the Defender queue
Choose Elastic Security if…
- ✓You need air-gapped deployment, which no Securonix configuration can provide
Securonix UEBA is one of 30 SIEM & log management products TechBag carries. The SIEM & Log Management guide narrows them to a shortlist and shows the reasoning. →
How much of your volume belongs in the cheap tiers?
Securonix meters on GB per day, and the lever you actually control is Data Pipeline Manager: one entitlement flexes across three tiers — Analytics at 1.0×, Investigation at 0.5×, Basic at 0.25×. Route firewall noise, verbose DEBUG logging and duplicated sources to the cheaper tiers and your effective capacity rises substantially. Do this classification before you sign, not during onboarding — it is much harder to renegotiate a band downward later. Illustrative rates; Securonix is quote-only.
One warning that matters more than the saving: Autonomous Threat Sweeper can only re-hunt data you actually ingested. Every source you filter out to control this bill is a source no future sweep can reach — and a blind sweep looks exactly like a clean one. Protect identity, endpoint and cloud control-plane telemetry from cost-driven filtering. Illustrative only; Securonix is quote-only.
Three ways to consume it
Securonix UEBA is part of the Unified Defense entitlement rather than a separate meter, so the commercial question is the platform’s GB/day band rather than a per-user analytics licence. What it costs you elsewhere is preparation: peer-group quality is bounded by your identity data, and the models need eight to sixteen weeks observing normal before their output should be acted on. Neither of those is a product fault, and both are where deployments go wrong. TechBag quotes in INR with GST.
Part of the platform
Not a separate meter
- Included in the Unified Defense entitlement
- Shares one platform with the log data
- Analyst moves from score to raw events without switching tools
What it needs from you
The dependency nobody prices
- Peer groups built on a stale directory mean nothing
- Service accounts need owners before they need baselines
- Fix IAM hygiene first — it improves posture regardless
Time to trust
Plan for this
- Models must observe normal before deviation means anything
- Early alerts WILL be noisy — do not over-suppress
- Teams that judge it in week two decide on bad evidence
Buy it for less — TechBag pricing beats list
Whatever the list prices above, TechBag negotiates a significantly better deal — with GST-compliant INR invoicing and local support. Ask us for your discounted quote.
Get an India-ready quote
Tell us your requirements and current tools — we’ll model it against what you spend today.
The 8 questions to ask every SIEM vendor
Take this into your next vendor call — including ours.
Is cloud acceptable, given UEBA is delivered within the SaaS platform with no air-gap option?
Is your directory accurate enough that peer groups will mean anything?
Do you have an inventory of service accounts and their owners?
Have HR and legal agreed the scope and handling of insider monitoring?
Who investigates a rising risk score, and within what timeframe?
Has the business accepted 8–16 weeks before output is trusted?
Have you modelled Exabeam's per-user meter against Securonix's GB meter on real numbers?
Does your monitoring scope comply with employment contracts and the DPDP Act?
Questions buyers ask
Ready to evaluate Securonix UEBA?
Find out what you already run, work out which tier you actually need above the free one, or get an honest Elastic-vs-Splunk comparison — in INR/GST.
Stats, ratings, review counts and pricing are illustrative and sourced from public materials; verify before purchase.