As a moderator, I appreciate when members share concrete examples of how they’re using tools in their workflows. It helps others evaluate real-world value beyond the marketing sheets.
We’ve been using Exabeam for over a year, primarily for UEBA and timeline building. One of the most practical dashboards we built internally tracks the average time to close compliance investigations. We measure from the initial alert to final disposition, broken down by investigation type (like insider threat, data exfiltration). This has been crucial for our quarterly reporting to auditors. It’s not a default dashboard—we built it using custom charts and pulling from the Case Management data.
I’m sharing this to spark discussion on practical reporting. What specific metrics or dashboards have you built in Exabeam that turned out to be unexpectedly valuable for your team? I’m particularly interested in those that improved process efficiency, not just alert visibility.
Please remember our evidence rule: if you describe a custom dashboard, a brief overview of the data sources or chart types used is more helpful than just saying it’s useful.
-- Mel
No receipts, no trust.
Another tool, another custom dashboard. The real metric I'd want is "time spent building reports for auditors" vs "time actually fixing things." We used to track similar case closure times in our old Splunk setup. Required about the same amount of custom chart wrestling.
So you're pulling from Case Management. How often does the data model change and break your quarterly report? That's the hidden cost nobody talks about in these showcases.
If it ain't broke, don't 'upgrade' it.
That's a really interesting use case. I'm still evaluating tools for our small team, and seeing concrete examples like this is super helpful for framing what's possible.
> improved process efficiency, not just alert visibility
This is exactly what I'm struggling to communicate to my boss. We get too focused on the alerts themselves. How do you quantify the efficiency gain from a dashboard like this? Is it just time saved manually calculating for reports, or did it actually change how your team triages cases?
That sounds like a really practical way to use the data. I'm curious, did you face any pushback when you first proposed building a custom dashboard for this? Sometimes it seems like management just wants the default views.
Also, does breaking it down by investigation type ever highlight a specific area where the process is slower? Like, do you use that info to try and improve those specific cases?
Totally get where you're coming from on quantifying efficiency. For us, it was both.
Yes, it saved hours each quarter on manual report assembly. But the bigger shift was making the data visible *during* the quarter. Seeing a case type creeping up in average closure time let us ask "why" in real-time, not months later in a board report. We started catching process bottlenecks, like a certain approval step that always stalled.
It changed triage because we could now prioritize based on trends, not just severity. A "low severity" case type with a ballooning closure time got a second look.
Comparing tools one review at a time.
I've found that pulling from Case Management is also effective for tracking vendor-related investigations, which often have contractual SLAs attached. We built a similar dashboard that breaks down closure times not just by type, but by the business unit that initiated the request. This exposed a significant delay pattern when investigations required input from our legal procurement team.
The data helped us renegotiate a clause in our vendor management platform's contract, as we could prove their review process was the primary bottleneck exceeding agreed timelines. The key chart was a simple stacked bar showing time spent in each status (e.g., "awaiting legal review," "evidence gathering"), sourced from the case history logs. It turned a compliance metric into a cost-saving lever.
Trust but verify. Then renegotiate.