Securonix pricing in 2026: capacity tiers, per-user UEBA, and Snowflake costs

Securonix EON prices on a two-axis model: a capacity tier measured in Events Per Second (EPS) for the SIEM core, plus per-monitored-user UEBA pricing layered on top in Professional and Enterprise tiers. The architecture choice that dominates total cost is the Snowflake-backed data plane: Securonix runs on customer-owned Snowflake, which means the Snowflake compute and storage bill is a separate line item that frequently adds 30-60 percent on top of the Securonix licence at moderate scale.

The capacity-based EPS tier maps roughly to log volume but with material variation by source mix. A typical mid-market environment at 5,000 EPS represents around 50-70 GB per day of mixed enterprise log data; a network-heavy environment with extensive firewall and NetFlow sources can hit 5,000 EPS at 20-30 GB per day; a clean cloud-API-log environment can reach 100 GB per day before crossing 5,000 EPS. Sampling actual EPS over 30-60 days before contract sizing is essential. Customers who size on assumed conversion ratios routinely under-buy capacity and pay overage rates.

Per-user UEBA pricing on Professional and Enterprise tiers is the second variable. The per-monitored-user rate runs roughly $30-$50 per user per year, layered on top of capacity. Auditing monitored-user scope (excluding service accounts, machine identities, and inactive HR records) routinely removes 20-30 percent of the count without losing detection coverage. The audit is rarely done; the savings are routinely left on the table.

The Snowflake bill is the area where customer-side cost discipline matters most. Securonix's default Snowflake warehouse sizing recommendation at deployment is generally conservative (i.e., over-provisioned for typical steady-state workloads). Right-sizing the Snowflake warehouse against actual Securonix query patterns saves 30-50 percent of Snowflake compute without measurably affecting Securonix performance. Customers who automate Snowflake warehouse auto-suspend and right-sizing through Snowflake's native controls routinely halve their Snowflake-side bill within the first 90 days.

Securonix RIN (Remote Ingester) nodes deployed at log source sites pre-process and filter data before it consumes Snowflake compute. Properly-tuned RIN deployments cut effective EPS by 20-40 percent and the corresponding Snowflake compute by similar margins. RIN configuration is rarely tuned beyond default at deployment; customers who invest 2-4 weeks in RIN optimisation post-deployment routinely recover the engineering cost in the first quarter via reduced Snowflake spend.

EA discounting at meaningful capacity commits (above 100,000 EPS) routinely produces 25-30 percent off list. The deeper discounts require multi-year commits. Quarter-end pressure is real; Securonix's competitive position against Exabeam, IBM QRadar, and Splunk in the mid-to-high enterprise tier is genuinely active in 2026, and buyers running competitive processes are landing better terms than buyers signing transactionally.

Securonix earns its place in three buyer profiles. First, organisations already on Snowflake at meaningful scale, where the Securonix data plane piggy-backs on existing committed Snowflake spend and the marginal Snowflake bill for security workloads is small. Second, identity-centric SOCs and privileged-access-monitoring use cases where Securonix's native UEBA depth (built around the original Securonix analytics engine) is the binding constraint. Third, regulated industries (financial services, healthcare, energy) where the customer-owned Snowflake data plane satisfies data sovereignty and audit requirements that vendor-hosted SIEMs cannot match cleanly.

Securonix loses where Snowflake is not pre-existing infrastructure (the dual-bill model surprises customers who didn't model it), where pure log volume economics dominate (Splunk and Sentinel typically win on raw cost), or where Microsoft 365 is the dominant log source (Sentinel's bundled Microsoft ingest is structurally cheaper at any scale). The capacity-plus-per-user pricing model also rewards careful contract sizing: customers who size on assumption rather than measurement routinely overpay for capacity and underpay for monitored users, ending up with both overage and underutilised licence at the same time.

The 2026 competitive environment is favourable. Securonix's pricing aggression against Exabeam in the mid-enterprise tier and against IBM QRadar at compliance-heavy enterprise is producing 25-30 percent discount outcomes on multi-year commits as a routine result. Quarter-end at year-end (Q4) carries the deepest discount band; mid-year buyers face transactional pricing.