LogLM vs. UEBA

Evaluating Exabeam or Securonix? Behavioral detection without the baseline.

User and Entity Behavior Analytics promised to catch what rules miss, yet many deployments depend on per-entity baselines, correlation rules and SIEM data priced by volume. LogLM takes a different path. It is a foundation model pretrained across diverse security telemetry, so your team detects concerning behavioral sequences zero-shot, upstream of the SIEM, inside your own boundary.

No per-entity baselines

99% zero-shot, with no learning period for users, hosts or peer groups.

Upstream of the SIEM

Detect before ingestion and send the SIEM what matters. Up to 45% lower SIEM cost.

Nothing leaves

Weights, verdicts and learning stay inside your environment: on premises, air-gapped or in your own cloud.

Side by side

Conventional UEBA and LogLM differ in where the intelligence comes from.

Dimension
Conventional UEBA
LogLM
Source of detection
Conventional UEBA:Statistical baselines per user and entity, plus correlation rules
LogLM:Encoder-only foundation model pretrained across diverse security telemetry
Time to trusted detections
Conventional UEBA:A baselining period per user, entity and peer group
LogLM:99% zero-shot, with no baselining period
Maintenance
Conventional UEBA:Rule, model and peer-group tuning as the organization changes
LogLM:Classifiers adapted to your environment, in a learning loop you own
Telemetry scope
Conventional UEBA:Identity, endpoint and log data already inside the SIEM
LogLM:Logs and telemetry across network, endpoint, identity, cloud, application and OT
SIEM economics
Conventional UEBA:Analytics run on data already ingested and priced by volume
LogLM:Runs upstream of the SIEM, for 45% lower SIEM costs. Some users report even greater savings
Where analysis runs
Conventional UEBA:Frequently a vendor-hosted cloud SIEM
LogLM:Inside your environment: on premises, air-gapped, your own cloud or Kubernetes
Investigation
Conventional UEBA:The vendor's console
LogLM:Vigil, the open source AI SOC, or the SIEM and SOAR you already run

The left column describes common UEBA architectures as vendors publicly present them. Individual products vary; confirm current capabilities with each vendor.

Evaluation results

Measured in production, not in a lab.

Security teams at BNY, Deutsche Telekom, a top-four global bank and the Technology Advancement Center evaluated LogLM on their own telemetry.

99% zero-shot detection

Without training on the customer's environment.

1% or fewer false positives

Analysts spend their time on incidents, not noise.

0.7% false negatives

Measured at a top-four global bank.

0.9% false negatives

Measured at BNY.

Evaluating a vendor

Questions to ask any UEBA vendor.

The answers expose the architecture you will live with long after the evaluation ends: how long baselines take, who maintains the rules, and what each gigabyte of behavioral data costs.

Exabeam and LogRhythm

Exabeam, which merged with LogRhythm, publicly describes behavioral analytics built on user and entity baselines. Ask how long baselining takes, and which models your team must tune as the organization changes.

Securonix

Securonix publicly describes UEBA within a cloud-native SIEM. Ask where the analysis runs, and how cost scales with the data volume behavioral detection requires.

Any UEBA platform

Ask what share of detections depends on rules someone must write, and what happens to peer groups after a reorganization or an acquisition.

How teams start

From historical logs to a proof of value inside your boundary.

1

Send telemetry

Share historical logs from one environment. No agents, no disruption.

2

Review findings

Receive detections mapped to MITRE ATT&CK, with the evidence behind each one.

3

Prove value in place

Run LogLM and Vigil inside your environment on live telemetry, beside your current behavioral analytics.

See what your behavioral analytics miss.

Send historical logs. The team runs LogLM against them and returns findings mapped to MITRE ATT&CK, with the evidence behind each one.