Which open-source option replaces QRadar, and why teams are looking now
For most QRadar teams, Wazuh is the open-source option to evaluate first when the goal is XDR and compliance-led monitoring, Graylog fits teams that mainly need log management and search with SIEM add-ons, and Security Onion suits network-centric threat hunting built on Suricata and Zeek. Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of IBM's QRadar SaaS assets on September 4, 2024, and it offers eligible QRadar SaaS customers free migration to Cortex XSIAM with IBM Consulting. QRadar on-premises customers, however, continue to receive IBM features and support, so an end of support is not the usual trigger. Most teams are reacting to a renewal date, a product roadmap they no longer trust, a data residency requirement, or lock-in to a vendor whose SaaS direction has changed hands.
Start by sorting your estate into the two groups that matter. If you run QRadar SaaS, confirm with the vendor whether your tenant is eligible for the free migration offer and what it covers, because that offer changes the cost comparison before any open-source work begins. If you run QRadar on-premises, the decision is about what you want to own: your log pipeline, your rule logic, and the location of your data. Write down which QRadar offenses and reports your analysts actually act on, which log sources feed them, and which compliance frameworks your auditors will ask about. Those answers decide whether Wazuh's compliance and file integrity capabilities, Graylog's search and retention model, or Security Onion's network sensors are the right starting point.
Be honest about the gaps before committing. Open-source platforms do not reproduce every QRadar feature one for one, and some capabilities, such as certain vendor content packs, the QRadar offense correlation model, and pre-built apps, will need to be rebuilt or replaced. Ask each candidate platform, in writing, which of your current use cases it covers natively, which need add-ons, and which need custom development. Treat the answers as claims to verify with a proof of concept against a copy of your real log volume, not as settled facts from a vendor brochure.
Three self-hosted options that fit different QRadar workloads
QRadar customers who stay off SaaS usually end up comparing a small set of self-hosted platforms. Each one covers a different slice of the job: endpoint and host telemetry, log search and alerting, or network-centric monitoring. The right fit depends on which QRadar rules, log sources and analyst workflows you need to keep.
Wazuh for host and endpoint telemetry
Wazuh is a free, GPLv2-licensed XDR and SIEM platform derived from OSSEC. It is made up of the Wazuh indexer, server, dashboard and lightweight agents, and it covers log analysis, file integrity monitoring, vulnerability detection and compliance support for PCI DSS and GDPR. It fits QRadar estates where most offense rules depend on endpoint and host events. Check agent coverage for your operating systems, how agents are managed at scale, and how much of your QRadar rule logic maps to Wazuh decoders and rules. Plan to tune alert volume before you rely on it for escalation.
Graylog Open for log search and alerting
Graylog Open is free to self-manage under the Server Side Public License, with no ingestion caps. It suits teams whose QRadar use is mostly log search, dashboards and rule-based alerts across many syslog and API sources. The main trade-off is the license itself: SSPL is source-available, not an OSI-approved open-source license, so have legal review it against your policies. Anomaly detection and SIEM content sit in the paid Graylog Security tier, so budget for that if your offenses depend on them.
Security Onion for network visibility
Security Onion is a free Linux distribution for threat hunting, security monitoring and log management. It bundles Suricata, Zeek and the Elastic Stack. It fits QRadar environments where offenses come from network flow and packet-level detections, and where analysts already hunt across network metadata. Its repository is licensed under the Elastic License 2.0, which limits some hosted and managed uses, so confirm that terms fit your deployment model. Security Onion Pro is a paid tier, and you should confirm which features it adds before you plan your support model.
Mapping QRadar capabilities to open-source coverage
This table compares the main QRadar capabilities with what Wazuh, Graylog, Security Onion and OpenSearch provide out of the box or with build work. Read covered as native or well-documented, partial as possible with configuration or custom content, and confirm-with-vendor as a point to verify in a proof of concept before committing. The main takeaway is that offense management has no direct equivalent, so the correlation logic must be rebuilt as detections and triage workflows.
| Capability | Wazuh | Graylog | Security Onion and OpenSearch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Log collection and parsing | Covered: agents and syslog collection with decoders and rules for common sources | Covered: inputs, extractors and pipeline rules for parsing and normalization | Partial: Elastic Stack ingest pipelines and Beats; custom parsers for proprietary sources |
| Event correlation rules | Partial: rule chaining and frequency-based rules; complex correlation needs custom work | Partial: Graylog Security adds correlation and threat detection; confirm rule depth on Open | Partial: detections authored in the Elastic stack; rebuild each QRadar building block by hand |
| Offense management and triage | Partial: alerts and dashboards, but no offense object that groups events by source and time | Partial: event grouping and alert workflows; no direct QRadar offense equivalent | Partial: case and alert views in the dashboard; triage process must be designed by the team |
| Network flow and packet visibility | Partial: host and network telemetry; flow analytics limited compared with QRadar Network Insights | Confirm with vendor: flow data depends on ingested sources | Covered: Suricata and Zeek provide network metadata and packet-based detection |
| Asset and vulnerability data | Covered: vulnerability detection and inventory from agents | Partial: asset data through lookup tables and integrations; no native vulnerability scanner | Partial: asset context through Elastic data; vulnerability scanning needs a separate tool |
| Reporting and compliance packs | Covered: compliance mapping for PCI DSS and GDPR; confirm pack coverage for other frameworks | Partial: dashboards and reports; compliance content must be built or sourced | Partial: dashboards available; compliance content is largely custom |
| API and integration access | Covered: REST API for agents, manager and indexer | Covered: REST API for search, inputs and alerts | Covered: OpenSearch REST API with Elasticsearch 7.10 wire compatibility |
| Offense model equivalence | Not available: QRadar offenses have no one-to-one equivalent in these tools | Not available: correlation outputs must be redesigned as alerts and cases | Not available: map each offense type to a detection and a response runbook |
How Wazuh, Graylog and Security Onion divide the workload
The three platforms overlap less than their marketing suggests, so the first design decision is which job each one owns. Wazuh is an endpoint-centric XDR and SIEM: its lightweight agents collect host logs, run file integrity monitoring and vulnerability detection, and send events to a server that analyzes them. Its stack is the Wazuh indexer, server, dashboard and agents, and it is derived from OSSEC. Graylog is a log management and search platform built around ingestion pipelines, streams and alerting, with the SIEM and anomaly detection features sitting in the paid Graylog Security tier. Security Onion is a network security monitoring distribution that bundles Suricata, Zeek and the Elastic Stack for threat hunting. Its value is the network sensor layer, not the host agent.
OpenSearch is the layer where these designs meet. It is licensed under Apache 2.0, was forked from Elasticsearch 7.10.2 and Kibana 7.10.2, and keeps wire compatibility with Elasticsearch 7.10 REST APIs. Graylog and Wazuh can both use OpenSearch-family indexes, and Security Onion's Elastic Stack lineage makes it the most sensitive of the three to version drift. Confirm the exact index backend and version each product supports in its current release notes before you size a shared cluster, because a plugin or client library that expects a different major version will break ingestion or dashboards without warning.
A common combination is Wazuh agents on servers and endpoints with Security Onion sensors on the network span, correlated in one search layer. Illustratively, a host agent sees a privilege escalation while a Zeek connection log shows the same source contacting an unfamiliar external host. Before committing, validate four things: how each platform timestamps and normalizes events, whether time synchronization across agents and sensors is reliable, which team owns each alert queue, and whether your QRadar offense rules map to a host signal, a network signal or both. Test the correlation with replayed events from a known incident, not only with live traffic.
What a self-hosted QRadar replacement costs over several years
This table compares the cost components of staying on QRadar, moving to Cortex XSIAM, or self-hosting Wazuh, Graylog or Security Onion, and marks each as one-time or recurring. Open-source core software carries no license fee, so the comparison turns on infrastructure, rule rebuilding, staffing and upgrades. Use the drivers column to request quotes on the same log volume, retention period and rule count.
| Cost component | Who is paid | One-time or recurring | Main cost drivers |
|---|---|---|---|
| QRadar license or subscription | IBM (on-premises) or Palo Alto Networks (for XSIAM migration paths) | Recurring | Licensed capacity, support tier, contract term and renewal pricing. Confirm terms with the vendor. |
| Open-source core software | Nobody for the license; community or vendor support is optional | Recurring only if you buy support | No license fee for Wazuh or Graylog Open. Paid support, if chosen, is quoted separately. |
| Paid tiers (Graylog Security, Security Onion Pro) | Graylog or Security Onion vendors | Recurring | Whether you need SIEM, threat detection or anomaly features that the free tier does not include. Confirm feature scope. |
| Infrastructure (storage, compute, retention) | Your cloud provider, data center or hardware budget | Recurring | Daily log volume, retention period, index replicas and search load. Size from your own measured ingestion. |
| Implementation and rule rebuilding | Internal engineers or a services partner such as DeployOpen | One-time | Number of offense rules, custom building blocks and reference sets to convert into detections. |
| Data migration and parallel running | Internal engineers or a services partner | One-time | Historical data volume to move, how long both platforms run side by side, and collector re-pointing. |
| Internal skills and staffing | Your staff or contracted analysts | Recurring | Team size, familiarity with the stack and on-call coverage. Open-source platforms usually need in-house operations. |
| Upgrades, patching and testing | Your team or a retainer partner | Recurring | Release frequency, number of components (indexer, server, dashboard, agents) and how often detections are retested. |
What teams give up when they leave QRadar and how to work around it
Leaving QRadar means losing more than a log store. The offense model, vendor-maintained content, the app ecosystem and IBM-linked integrations each need a replacement or a decision. Each card names the gap, the usual workaround and what to confirm before you commit.
Offense model and correlation logic
QRadar groups related events into offenses, which analysts work as single cases. Most open-source platforms return alerts or events instead, so offense-style grouping has to be rebuilt through correlation rules, aggregation windows or case management. Map each offense type your analysts rely on to a detection, a grouping key and a triage step. Confirm with the vendor whether the target platform supports multi-event correlation and how alerts are grouped before you port any rule.
Tuned rule library
Years of QRadar rule tuning, including building block logic and exclusions for your environment, rarely transfer as exports. Treat the library as a backlog: rank rules by the threats they cover, rebuild the highest-value ones first, and retire rules that only reflect old infrastructure. Keep the original tuning notes, since they explain false positive decisions that auditors and new analysts will ask about. Confirm the rule format your target platform uses before estimating the rebuild effort.
Vendor-maintained content and support
IBM supplies content updates, rule packs and support tiers under its contract. Open-source platforms distribute detection rules and updates through community projects, so you need a named owner for updates and a defined source for each rule set. Commercial support options from the platform vendor or an implementation partner are usually contracted separately. Ask each vendor what support tier is available, what response commitments it offers in writing, and whether it publishes an SLA.
QRadar app ecosystem
QRadar apps on the IBM Security App Exchange extended parsers, dashboards and connectors. Equivalent apps may not exist for your target platform, so inventory every app you run and classify each as replace, rebuild or drop. Custom parsers and dashboards are a common workaround, and they become ongoing maintenance you must budget for. Confirm which connectors the target platform ships with and which require custom development.
Log source parsers and DSMs
QRadar Device Support Modules tell the platform how to parse each log source. When a source has no ready-made parser, you write one, test it against real samples and maintain it when the vendor changes its log format. Build a parser inventory covering every source, its volume and its owner. Confirm which sources your target platform already decodes and how it handles fields it does not recognize.
IBM-specific integrations
Some QRadar deployments depend on IBM products for threat intelligence feeds, SOAR playbooks, vulnerability scanners or identity data. Each integration needs a replacement connector or a decision to drop it. Note that QRadar on-premises customers continue to receive IBM features and support, so your timeline depends on whether you are moving off the product or only off a SaaS deployment. Confirm with IBM and your target vendor which integrations are still supported on each path.
How to move QRadar offenses and log sources to a self-hosted platform
This sequence turns QRadar's log sources, custom rules and offense history into a tested set of detections on a self-hosted platform, with evidence that the cutover did not drop coverage.
Inventory log sources, rules and offenses
The security engineering lead exports a full list of configured log sources, custom rules, building blocks, reference sets, and offense categories from the QRadar console, along with the owner of each source. Compare that list against what actually sends events in the last several weeks, because dormant sources and orphaned rules are common in long-running deployments. The step is done when every source and rule has an owner and a keep, retire or rebuild decision recorded in a shared register.
Confirm export and retention options
Before any migration work, the platform team confirms with IBM, or with the administrator of the client's own QRadar version, which export formats and methods are available for events, flows, offenses and rule definitions, and how long historical data is retained in the deployed configuration. Do not assume the Sumo Logic 100,000-row CSV export limit applies here, since QRadar export behavior depends on the client's version and configuration. The step closes with a written retention requirement per data type, agreed with compliance, and a confirmed export method.
Map AQL searches and rules to detections
Security engineers translate each AQL search, custom rule and building block into an equivalent detection on the target platform, such as Wazuh rules, Graylog streams and alerts, or OpenSearch queries in Security Onion. Mark every mapping that cannot be reproduced exactly, including correlation logic that depends on QRadar-specific offense grouping, and record the compensating control for each one. The step is complete when each rule has a mapped detection, a documented gap, or a retirement reason that the detection owner has signed off.
Pilot on a limited set of log sources
The team picks a small group of log sources with well-understood event volume, such as a firewall or an identity provider, and routes them to the self-hosted platform while QRadar keeps receiving them. Engineers verify parsing, field names, timestamps and normalization against sample events, then test the mapped detections with known benign and malicious activity from a lab or cyber range. The pilot is done when parsing matches expectations for each source and the team has a list of tuning changes with owners.
Run parallel and compare alert outcomes
Both platforms receive the same events for an agreed period so the team can compare alert counts, false positive rates and offense-equivalent outcomes side by side. Analysts review differences in both directions, meaning alerts that appear only on the new platform and alerts that appear only in QRadar, and document the cause of each. The step closes when the reviewers sign off on every material difference and the comparison report is filed as evidence for the change record.
Cut over collectors and sources
The platform team repoints remaining collectors, syslog forwarders and agents to the new platform in batches, starting with the lowest-risk sources, and keeps a rollback path for each batch until the batch has run cleanly. The operations team confirms that event counts, parsing health and detection coverage match the parallel-run baseline after every change. The step is done when every in-scope source sends to the new platform and the change log records each cutover and its verification.
Decommission QRadar with archived evidence
Once the retention and audit requirements are satisfied, the team exports the archived events, offense history and rule definitions that must be kept, stores them in a location the compliance owner controls, and verifies that the archive can be read. Only then are QRadar licenses, appliances or hosted tenants shut down, with the decommissioning approved in writing by the security and compliance owners. The step closes with a signed decommissioning record that lists what was archived, where it is stored and who can access it.
Rebuilding QRadar offense rules as detections
QRadar building blocks and correlation rules do not port automatically to an open-source platform, so each one has to be re-expressed as a detection before it is trusted. The rule logic, the reference sets, the building blocks that other rules depend on, and the offense grouping behavior all need to be read, understood and rewritten in the target engine, whether that is Wazuh, Graylog or Security Onion. Treat the export as an inventory, not as a translation. For each rule, record what it was meant to catch, which log sources it depends on, and which analysts act on it today. Many rules will turn out to be duplicates, stale, or dependent on a building block nobody can explain, and those are cheaper to retire during the rebuild than to port.
Each rebuilt detection should carry its own test data, a severity, a false-positive review and a named owner. Test data means a set of recorded events that should fire the detection and a set that should not, replayed against the new platform before cutover. Severity should follow the team's triage model, not the severity QRadar assigned. The false-positive review should run against a period of real traffic in parallel with the old rule, and the owner is the person who answers for the detection after go-live. Keep the decision record for each detection in the same place as its rule code so that a change in one is visible next to the other.
To keep logic traceable for auditors, store detection definitions as version-controlled files with a change history, and map each detection to the control or risk it supports in your compliance program. Ask the people who will assess your environment which evidence they expect for detection coverage and change approval, since requirements differ by framework and by assessor. Before you start, confirm with your QRadar administrator exactly what the current version can export: rule definitions, building blocks, reference data and offense history may need separate exports, and some of them may only be available through the console or API. Ask IBM or your support channel to confirm the export format for your release, and test a full round trip on a non-production instance before you rely on it.
Which option fits by situation
Residency requirements usually decide where logs may live before they decide which product to run. A self-hosted platform in your own cloud account, data center, or air-gapped network keeps raw events under your control, but it also makes you responsible for storage, patching, backup, and access control. Wazuh (with its indexer, server, and dashboard), Graylog Open, and a self-managed OpenSearch cluster can all run inside those boundaries. Security Onion is also deployable on-premises, though its sensor and Elastic components need to be sized for your traffic.
- Deployment boundary: Confirm whether the requirement covers only storage or also processing, administration, and support access.
- Air-gapped operation: Check that every package, rule update, and threat feed can be mirrored into the isolated network.
- Vendor access: Ask whether support tickets, remote troubleshooting, or cloud-hosted analytics would move any log content outside the boundary.
- Retention location: Map where backups and archives sit, since they often fall under the same residency rule as live data.
- Operator access: Define who can read raw events, which is often the real residency question for auditors.
Before choosing, ask your data protection office to define in writing which data categories must stay in-country or in-network and whether the requirement applies to backups.
Cost pressure usually comes from a renewal, a licensing change, or a pricing model tied to ingestion volume. Open-source options shift the bill from license fees to infrastructure, staffing, and optional commercial tiers. Graylog Open is free to self-manage under the Server Side Public License and has no ingestion caps, so the main recurring costs become compute, storage, and the engineers who run the platform. Wazuh is free under GPLv2, and Security Onion is free with Security Onion Pro as a paid option.
- One-time costs: Migration of detections, sizing, architecture, and the initial build are typically fixed-scope work.
- Recurring costs: Storage growth, hardware or cloud compute, upgrades, and on-call coverage continue every year.
- Commercial tiers: Graylog Enterprise and Graylog Security add support, data lake options, and SIEM features at additional cost.
- Cost drivers: Daily log volume, retention length, and the number of parsed fields are the main levers.
- Quote items: Ask for a written scope that separates licensing, infrastructure, implementation, and ongoing support.
Before comparing numbers, ask your current vendor for the ingestion and retention figures behind your renewal so you can model the self-hosted storage against the same volumes.
Compliance-driven teams need controls they can explain and evidence they can hand to an assessor. Wazuh lists log analysis, file integrity monitoring, vulnerability detection, and compliance support for PCI DSS and GDPR, which gives a starting point for mapping collected evidence to requirements. Graylog Security and OpenSearch-based builds can also support audit-relevant logging, but the mapping work is yours. No platform makes a system compliant on its own, and DeployOpen prepares systems, controls, and evidence for assessment without issuing audit reports or certifications.
- Requirement mapping: Map each logging, monitoring, and integrity expectation to a specific rule, dashboard, or report in the platform.
- Evidence packages: Plan how alerts, configuration baselines, and retention settings will be exported and dated for the assessor.
- Log integrity: Define how log tampering is detected and who can change retention or alert configuration.
- Independent review: Confirm early with your qualified assessor which evidence formats they accept.
- Gap list: Document the controls the open-source stack does not cover, such as process or staffing controls.
Before starting, ask your assessor or certification body which controls and evidence formats they expect for a self-hosted SIEM, and confirm which PCI DSS or GDPR obligations your team owns.
Some teams replace QRadar mainly to get deeper network visibility for threat hunting. Security Onion bundles Suricata for intrusion detection, Zeek for network metadata and protocol logs, and the Elastic Stack for search and dashboards. It is a Linux distribution aimed at analysts who work from packet-derived evidence, so the trade-off is narrower scope than a general log platform. Its repository is licensed under the Elastic License 2.0, which you should review with counsel if you plan to redistribute or embed it.
- Sensor placement: Plan where taps or span ports sit, since visibility depends on which segments are monitored.
- Traffic volume: Size sensors and storage for peak throughput, because packet-derived logs grow quickly.
- Hybrid log sources: Decide whether endpoint, identity, or application logs will still flow to a separate platform.
- Rule migration: Translate QRadar offense rules into Suricata signatures and Zeek-based detections where they fit.
- Licensing review: Confirm whether the Elastic License 2.0 terms and any Security Onion Pro features match your use.
Before committing, ask your analysts which investigations they run most often and whether those depend on packet data, host logs, or both.
Questions buyers ask before replacing QRadar
How much effort and time does replacing QRadar take?
The effort depends mostly on how much content QRadar holds that has to move, not on the platform name. The main drivers are the number of log sources and parsers to re-onboard, the count of custom rules, building rules and reference sets, the number of offense-based workflows and integrations with ticketing or SOAR tools, and how many years of history must stay searchable. Teams with a small, well-documented rule set and clean log onboarding usually have an easier path than teams with years of tuning and undocumented exceptions. Ask for a written inventory of log sources, rules, reports and integrations before any timeline is discussed, and ask the vendor or partner to show how each item will be handled in the plan. Run the old and new platforms in parallel for a defined period so detections can be compared before cutover.
Can our own team replace QRadar without outside help?
Many teams can do parts of the work in-house, but the answer depends on current staff capacity and skills. A team that already runs Linux servers, manages log pipelines and writes detections will find the platform setup more familiar than a team that has only used a managed console. Common in-house tasks include standing up the platform, onboarding high-volume sources and maintaining the detection library. Outside help is most often used for architecture decisions, hardening, backup design, integration work and detection migration under time pressure. DeployOpen plans, implements, customizes, integrates, hardens, backs up, upgrades, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside the client's own infrastructure, and most engagements are fixed-scope with scope, deliverables and timelines agreed in writing before work starts. Ongoing support is available as a retainer.
What skills does a QRadar replacement require from our staff?
Plan for four skill areas: SIEM engineering, Linux administration, detection writing and operations. SIEM engineering covers log source onboarding, parsing, normalization and field mapping. Linux administration covers installing, patching and tuning the self-hosted components, including storage, memory and network sizing. Detection writing means translating QRadar custom rules, building blocks and AQL searches into the query language of the new platform, then testing them against real data to reduce false positives. Operations covers backups, upgrades, access control and incident handling workflows. Wazuh, Graylog and Security Onion each have different component layouts, so the skill mix will vary by choice. Assess these skills honestly against your roster before choosing an option, and budget for training or outside support where gaps exist.
Can QRadar offenses be exported and recreated elsewhere?
Raw events and rule logic can usually be exported and recreated, but QRadar offenses themselves are a product-specific correlation output and are not a portable format. The practical approach is to export the underlying data you need for history, then rebuild the detection logic that produced offenses as rules, correlation searches or alerts on the new platform. Inventory each custom rule, its trigger conditions, reference data and the response it drives, and record which offenses were actually actioned. Some correlation behavior, such as building blocks or offense aggregation across time windows, may need redesign rather than direct translation. Confirm export options for your QRadar version and your retention requirements with IBM or your partner, and test rebuilt detections against replayed events before retiring the old rules.
Does Palo Alto's free migration to Cortex XSIAM apply to us?
Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of IBM's QRadar SaaS assets on September 4, 2024, and offered eligible QRadar SaaS customers free migration to Cortex XSIAM with IBM Consulting. That offer is tied to QRadar SaaS customers. QRadar on-premises customers continue to receive IBM features and support, according to the same announcement, so the offer does not apply to them by default. If you run QRadar SaaS, confirm your eligibility, the scope of the migration, and what it covers with Palo Alto Networks and IBM in writing. If you run on-premises QRadar, confirm with IBM what support and feature roadmap applies to your version and contract. Either way, check the terms before assuming any cost is waived.
How should we compare quotes for a QRadar replacement?
Compare quotes on the same written scope, not on headline totals. Each quote should list the components it covers, such as platform installation, log source onboarding, detection migration, integration work, hardening, backup design, documentation, training and post-go-live support. Separate one-time work from recurring costs such as software subscriptions, support contracts, storage, compute and retainers. For self-hosted open-source options, the largest recurring costs are usually infrastructure, staff time and support, while the licensing cost of the core software can be zero or tiered depending on the option. Ask each bidder for its assumptions on data volume, retention, number of sources and parallel-run length, and ask how change requests will be priced. DeployOpen does not publish a price list. A quote follows from the written scope.
What drives the cost of self-hosting a SIEM after QRadar?
The main cost drivers are data volume, retention period, number of log sources, detection complexity and the level of resilience you require. Storage and compute scale with daily ingestion and how long data must stay searchable, so retention policy decisions have a large effect on infrastructure cost. Log source count and parser complexity drive onboarding effort. Detection migration effort depends on how many custom rules you have and how much they need to be redesigned. High availability, disaster recovery and separate environments for testing add cost for infrastructure and operations. Ask your candidate platform and partner to show the sizing assumptions used, and check whether the open-source license terms for the chosen option affect your plan. Confirm each assumption against your own telemetry before accepting any estimate.
How DeployOpen plans and delivers a QRadar replacement
DeployOpen plans, implements, integrates, hardens, backs up, upgrades, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside the client's own infrastructure, whether that is the client's cloud accounts, data centers or air-gapped networks. DeployOpen is a Chainscore Labs company. For a QRadar replacement, that work typically spans the log platform itself, collector and agent rollout, the translation of offense rules into detections, cutover and retirement of QRadar. Before any work starts, ask who owns each of those areas in your organization and whether your current QRadar rule inventory, log source list and retention commitments are documented well enough to scope from.
Most engagements are fixed-scope. Scope, deliverables and timelines are agreed in writing before work starts, and a quote follows from that written scope. DeployOpen does not publish a price list, so the cost depends on the number of log sources, rules to rebuild, storage design and how much parallel running you need. Ask any provider for a written breakdown of what is one-time (design, rule translation, cutover) and what recurs (licensing if you choose a commercial tier, hosting, retainers), and check that the breakdown names the deliverables it covers. Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing are available as retainers.
Security testing and compliance readiness are separate workstreams. DeployOpen runs security testing of applications, APIs, cloud and infrastructure, and AI systems, and it prepares systems, controls and evidence for compliance assessments. It does not issue audit reports, attestations or certifications. Independent auditors and certification bodies do that work, so agree early which evidence your assessor will expect from the new platform, such as detection coverage records and log retention proof, and confirm with your assessor which of those artifacts they accept.
