Vendor evidence profile
Microsoft Sentinel: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Microsoft Sentinel for siem and log analytics decisions: 38 items from 5 kinds of source, covering December 2019 to July 2026. Every item on this page links to the source it came from, carrying the date that source states and saying so plainly where it states none.
In one line
This record holds 38 evidence items on Microsoft Sentinel, and no advisory in NVD, the European Vulnerability Database, the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities or CERT-Bund could be attributed to a Microsoft Sentinel product. That is a gap in what the registers publish under this name, not a clean bill of health. 92 percent of the record comes from sources Microsoft Sentinel cannot edit. Whether Microsoft Sentinel suits your decision is not on this page: that depends on your criteria, your compliance scope and your shortlist, and this record does not know them.
Evidence items
38
in this record
Attributed advisories
0
none known exploited
Authoritative share
68%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 26, 2026
sources re-queried
How independent is this record
Sources are not equal. A vendor can rewrite its own website overnight and optimise it for whatever a language model is likely to quote. It cannot edit a government vulnerability register or a years-old discussion thread. Every item in this record is classified by how much the vendor could influence it, and the score below is the weighted result.
Independence of this record
Objectivity score 83/100
- Authoritative
- 26 items, 68 percent
- Independent
- 9 items, 24 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 3 items, 8 percent
92 percent of this record comes from sources Microsoft Sentinel does not control. The remainder is Microsoft Sentinel's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Microsoft Sentinel record, with the body that operates each one. No rating, score or ranking is taken from anywhere, and no vendor pays to appear in this index or to change what it says.
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 25 | May 21, 2026 |
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 1 | Dec 11, 2019 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 8 | Jul 26, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 1 | Apr 23, 2025 |
| The vendor's own documentation | Vendor website, indexed by nexalign | Vendor-controlled | 3 | Jun 27, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Microsoft Sentinel in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Microsoft Sentinel: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Microsoft Sentinel as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 0 records passed that test.
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming Microsoft Sentinel in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 0 threads in the record, most recent first.
The source ledger counts 1 further thread on these platforms that mention Microsoft Sentinel somewhere in the discussion without naming it in the title. They are searched and counted, and they are not listed as reports about this vendor.
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name Microsoft Sentinel. This section runs on a fixed list of such outlets rather than on whatever a web search returns for the company name, because that search is dominated by sales-intelligence profiles and directory listings which say nothing about the product. Social networks and press-release wires are excluded outright.
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
Microsoft Sentinel Reviews, Competitors and Pricing
- g2.comdate not recordedIndependent
Microsoft Sentinel Features | G2
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Microsoft Sentinel Reviews, Ratings & Features 2025 | Gartner Peer Insights
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Microsoft Sentinel Reviews & Ratings 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Top Microsoft Sentinel Likes & Dislikes 2025 | Gartner Peer Insights
What Microsoft Sentinel publishes about itself
The vendor's own documentation, kept separate from everything above and marked as vendor-controlled. It is useful, and it is a claim until an independent source confirms it.
- Vendor documentationJun 27, 2026Vendor-controlled
Microsoft Learn: Build with answers in reach
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Microsoft Sentinel record right now.
26 register entries mention Microsoft Sentinel, but none of them could be attributed to a product of Microsoft Sentinel. They describe other vendors' software and are not shown here.
No public practitioner discussion naming Microsoft Sentinel was found in the indexed threads. Operational experience with this product is not represented in this record.
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Microsoft Sentinel is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Log Ingestion Capacity & Cost Modelweight
- Detection Rule Coverageweight
- SOAR / Playbook Automationweight
- Mean Time to Detect (MTTD)weight
- Mean Time to Respond (MTTR)weight
Criteria shown as examples for siem and log analytics. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Is Microsoft Sentinel a safe choice?
The public record holds 0 advisories attributed to Microsoft Sentinel products and 38 evidence items in total. None of them appears in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. Whether that is acceptable depends on your risk appetite, your compliance scope and the alternatives on your shortlist, none of which a public page can know. This page reports the record; it does not rate the vendor.
Where does the Microsoft Sentinel data on this page come from?
From 5 kinds of source: CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; The vendor's own documentation, operated by Vendor website, indexed by nexalign. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does Microsoft Sentinel pay to appear in this index?
No. There is no paid placement, no sponsored profile and no way for a vendor to change what the record says. Vendors are listed because their category comes up in enterprise technology decisions. Corrections to a specific entry can be sent to [email protected] and are checked against the source.
How much of the Microsoft Sentinel record is the vendor's own material?
8 percent. The remaining 92 percent comes from sources Microsoft Sentinel does not control. Vendor-published material stays in the record and is labelled as vendor-controlled rather than counted as independent confirmation.
Why does this page not say whether Microsoft Sentinel is better than the alternatives?
Because better only exists relative to a decision. Which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs and what counts as a dealbreaker are properties of the buyer, not of the vendor. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool and scores it against the criteria of an actual decision, which is where a comparison becomes meaningful.
How this record is built
Sources are queried on a schedule, not on request. Findings are stored with the source URL, the event date and a content hash, so the same item is never counted twice and every statement stays traceable to where it came from.
Nothing on this page is written by a language model. Counts are counts, dates are the dates the sources carry, and titles are the sources' own wording. Where a section is empty, that is a finding in itself and is stated as one.
Corrections are welcome. If an entry is wrong or an attribution is off, write to [email protected] and it gets checked against the source.
Citing this page
nexalign GmbH, Microsoft Sentinel: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 26, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/microsoft-sentinel.
Microsoft Sentinel next to a product it competes with
The same two records side by side, with the reasons their numbers cannot be subtracted from one another stated on the page.
Other vendors in siem and log analytics
The whole field is on one page: every siem and log analytics vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Splunk
86 evidence items from 5 sources
IBM QRadar
55 evidence items from 3 sources
ArcSight
37 evidence items from 3 sources
Elastic SIEM
28 evidence items from 2 sources
Google Chronicle
28 evidence items from 2 sources
Palo Alto XSIAM
28 evidence items from 2 sources
Turn this record into a decision you can defend
DecisionOS takes the same evidence pool this page is built from, weighs it against the criteria of your actual decision, and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.