Archer

NA

Solution from RSA was much simpler and easy to customize over it's competition at that time. The modular architecture was also the key to selecting the tool as it gives you flexibility to adopt in a gradual way rather than figuring out to deploy a complete tool to justify the cost and time. RSA is known name but for us it was important to partner with someone who’s keen to understand our needs and expectations and that’s what we got from RSA with an additional advantage of flexibility.

Microsoft Dynamics is a useful tool with easy integration to toolsets for analytics, and has a remarkable ease of use. The accessibility and discoverability in RSA Archer is more difficult, as sections get densely nested. The search capability in Dynamics is smoother but reliant on complete words being used, whereas RSA Archer searching is full Boolean.

Better automation and control over process. Better reporting of progress. Better value for our dollar and pricing structure. I like that our costs are not driven by our utilization. This allows us to apply Archer to new areas without the immediate need to justify additional costs. We are able to realize benefits faster and adapt to changing business needs.

Both have similar functions, but it was decided that a separate application was desired for Risk and Compliance Systems. This was partly due to Line of Business Ownership and separation of duties.

RSA Archer stacks up against the other products in the following aspects; Continuous innovation and improvement in user experience Excellent support High quality documentation on use cases for users as well as admins and practitioners Great collaboration tools like RSA community, RSA Exchange, working groups Frequent conventions, conferences, Summits

It has been roughly 5 years since I have seen Securevue, so a lot can change, but to me it felt like several products were purchased and an attempt was made to piece them all together into a single solution (and I believe that may have been true). It also required agents on endpoints which did not fit the model I believed customers were looking for. MetricStream appeared to be difficult to install as it took their own engineers some time to get it installed in my lab environment. I did not think their web interface was as intuitive as RSA Archer. Customization to the platform was possible to some degree, but required a lot more work and technical skills than required by Archer. I did like the landing page for MetricStream which called out the important action items for the current user, but Archer v6.X now has this feature.