IBM QRadar vs Splunk cost: 2026 EPS-vs-GB comparison
Independent head-to-head cost comparison. Per-EPS QRadar versus per-GB Splunk at five environment profiles, EPS-to-GB conversion math, five-year TCO, and where each vendor genuinely wins on compliance and depth. Updated May 2026.
Per-EPS versus per-GB: how the meters collide
QRadar and Splunk priced their products around different historical realities. QRadar's correlation engine performance scales with event rate, so per-EPS billing aligned costs with the resource consumed. Splunk's analytics engine scales with data volume, so per-GB billing aligned costs with the constraint that mattered. Both pricing models survived because they roughly track the underlying cost driver, but they make direct cross-shop comparisons require a conversion step. The honest conversion sits at approximately 70-80 EPS per GB for typical enterprise log mix, which means a 5,000 EPS QRadar deployment is roughly equivalent to a 65-75 GB-per-day Splunk deployment.
The conversion varies materially with source mix. Windows event logs average 60-80 EPS per GB. Firewall and NetFlow data run 200-400 EPS per GB. SaaS audit logs run 30-50 EPS per GB. EDR telemetry averages 100-150 EPS per GB. Sampling actual environment EPS over 60 days before any vendor comparison is essential discipline; assumed conversions routinely produce wrong vendor decisions. Customers who sign QRadar contracts based on assumed EPS-to-GB conversion frequently under-buy capacity and pay overage rates; customers who sign Splunk contracts based on assumed conversion routinely over-buy ingest capacity that they never use.
The structural advantage shifts at scale. At small-to-mid scale (under 5,000 EPS, under 70 GB per day) the two vendors land roughly even on all-in cost. At mid-to-high scale (15,000-50,000 EPS) QRadar's per-EPS scaling delivers materially better economics than Splunk's per-GB scaling, particularly when QRadar's bundled compliance content packs are valued separately from raw licence cost. At very high scale (above 50,000 EPS or 700 GB per day) QRadar wins decisively on cost; Splunk wins only on detection content depth or SOC familiarity.
Same environment, both vendors
| Profile | QRadar | Splunk Cloud + ES | Winner | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,500 EPS / ~20 GB/day | $60K-$95K | $50K-$80K | Roughly even | Both viable; depends on existing skills and content |
| 5,000 EPS / ~70 GB/day | $165K-$240K | $155K-$245K (with ES) | Roughly even | Both at similar all-in; QRadar wins compliance pack value |
| 15,000 EPS / ~210 GB/day | $420K-$620K | $465K-$735K (with ES) | QRadar narrowly | Compliance content packs included; Splunk needs add-ons |
| 50,000 EPS / ~700 GB/day | $1.1M-$1.7M | $1.55M-$2.45M (with ES) | QRadar decisive | QRadar's per-EPS scaling beats Splunk's per-GB at high volume |
| 100,000 EPS / ~1.4 TB/day | $2.0M-$3.0M | $3.1M-$4.9M (with ES) | QRadar decisive | Splunk multi-year EA can close gap to within 30% |
Annual licence ranges, list pricing for both vendors, before negotiated multi-year discounts. EPS-to-GB conversion at typical enterprise mix of 70-80 EPS per GB.
Five-year TCO at 5,000 EPS / 70 GB per day
| Year | QRadar | Splunk Cloud + ES |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 (5,000 EPS / 70 GB/day) | $200K | $200K (with ES) |
| Year 2 | $170K (TCO drop) | $155K (TCO drop) |
| Year 3 | $165K (steady state) | $150K (steady state) |
| Year 4 | $175K (5% inflation) | $160K (5% inflation) |
| Year 5 | $185K | $170K |
| 5-year total | $895K | $835K |
Mid-scale comparison. At higher volumes the QRadar advantage widens; at lower volumes the comparison stays roughly even. Excludes one-time migration costs.
When QRadar genuinely wins
- +Compliance-driven enterprises (PCI Level 1, HIPAA, SOX, FedRAMP, defence) where the in-product compliance content packs save real implementation effort
- +On-premise deployment requirements where QRadar's appliance model and Cloud Pak for Security flexibility win over Splunk Enterprise self-managed
- +Stable, predictable log sources where per-EPS billing matches the underlying cost driver more cleanly than per-GB
- +Existing IBM-centric IT organisations where Cloud Pak for Security broader integration delivers operational simplification
- +Risk-averse buyers preferring IBM's enterprise support model and long-term product lifecycle commitments over best-of-breed depth
When Splunk genuinely wins
- +Mature SOCs with deep custom Splunk ES content built over years where the migration cost outweighs licence saving
- +High-velocity, search-heavy SIEM use cases where Splunk's analytics performance and content library depth are the binding constraint
- +Cloud-native deployment preferences where Splunk Cloud's operational model is genuinely better than QRadar on Cloud (Cloud Pak for Security)
- +Premium content pack requirements (ITSI, Splunk Mission Control, Splunk SOAR) that QRadar does not match
- +Engineering-strong SOCs that value Splunk's API-driven workflow, broader community, and richer third-party app ecosystem