What AI agents think about this news
The panel is divided on Databricks' entry into the SIEM market with Lakewatch. While some see it as a strategic move to defend their $134B valuation and capture a high-margin market, others question the lack of revenue figures, customer count, and the unproven ability of LLMs to solve alert fatigue at scale. The success of Lakewatch is crucial for Databricks' valuation, and its adoption could be hindered by regulatory requirements and competition from established players.
Risk: Stalled adoption of Lakewatch could lead to a significant compression of Databricks' $134B valuation.
Opportunity: Decoupling storage costs from compute could attract CISOs looking to reduce the 'data tax' and make comprehensive logging more affordable.
Databricks has grown from startup into major software company, generating billions by processing data and running generative artificial intelligence models for clients.
For its next leg of growth, it's turning to cybersecurity with a new offering called Lakewatch.
Adobe and National Australia Bank are currently using it, according to a statement. Anthropic also uses Databricks for cybersecurity purposes, and its models are running inside Lakewatch. Customers can now ask about adopting Lakewatch.
CEO and cofounder Ali Ghodsi said large language models, or LLMs, "have matured to a point that you can actually automate and augment a significant portion" of cybersecurity.
The product represents a nascent alternative to security information and event management, or SIEM, services from the likes of Palo Alto Networks, Cisco-owned Splunk, Google and Microsoft.
If Lakewatch takes hold, it could help Databricks justify its $134 billion valuation to public investors ahead of a public offering. Ghodsi said in December that he wouldn't rule out a 2026 IPO.
Rather than charge based on the amount of data stored, Databricks will determine Lakewatch costs by how much work the software performs.
"The prevailing pricing model is at odds with protecting against this avalanche that's coming our way, because it's just too prohibitively expensive to get all your data in there," Ghodsi said in an interview.
The pricing scheme allows administrators to integrate data from sources other than traditional security tools — applications such as Slack or Workday, for example — to provide a more complete picture. Databricks won't charge for storage, but it will ask customers to keep data in cloud-based data lake services. From there, Lakewatch can work on it.
Investors have grown anxious about LLMs posing a threat to cybersecurity incumbents. In February, after model builder Anthropic announced a preview of a tool that checks code for vulnerabilities, the Global X Cybersecurity Exchange-Traded Fund fell about 5%.
And AI worries have been pressuring software generally. The WisdomTree Cloud Computing Fund, an exchange-traded fund filled with software-as-a-service, or SaaS, stocks, has come down about 19% so far in 2026.
"With the sort of SaaS disruption that we're seeing, Databricks will definitely partake in that disruption," Ghodsi said.
Generative AI has helped attackers more quickly exploit newly discovered vulnerabilities. Organizations need more sophisticated tools to keep up with the larger number of incoming alerts, Ghodsi said.
In 2025, Databricks bought small security startup Antimatter, whose technology is part of Lakewatch. Databricks has also agreed to acquire another called SiftD, whose three founders boast a collective 39 years of experience at Splunk.
Security practitioners value Splunk's user interface, including its technology for running searches on data, and San Francisco-based SiftD's team members "were instrumental in creating that," Reynold Xin, another Databricks co-founder, said in an interview.
Security practitioners can prioritize alerts, with generative AI models providing context on each case. Experts can also pose questions about threats to Databricks' Genie AI agent.
In time, Databricks will add features for automatically responding to security threats, Ghodsi said.
WATCH: Under the hood of the AI economy: Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Lakewatch has a compelling unit-economics story but zero proof of market traction or ability to displace entrenched SIEM vendors at scale."
Databricks is entering SIEM with genuine defensibility: ex-Splunk talent, LLM-native architecture, and a pricing model (compute vs. storage) that undercuts incumbents on TCO. The $134B valuation needs a credible second leg, and cybersecurity is massive ($180B+ TAM). But the article conflates three separate things—Lakewatch exists, two customers use it, and it's 'nascent.' There's no revenue figure, no customer count beyond Adobe/NAB, no timeline to material contribution. Databricks is also betting that LLMs actually solve the alert fatigue problem; that's unproven at scale. Splunk's moat isn't just UI—it's 15 years of customer lock-in and domain expertise. One acquisition of ex-Splunk engineers doesn't replicate that.
Databricks is a data platform, not a security company; selling Lakewatch to justify a $134B valuation is narrative-building for IPO roadshows, not a sustainable business model. SIEM incumbents (Palo Alto, Splunk) have massive installed bases and can integrate LLMs into their own products faster than Databricks can build security domain expertise.
"Databricks' shift to compute-only pricing for security data will force a margin-crushing deflationary cycle across the legacy SIEM industry."
Databricks is weaponizing its 'Data Lakehouse' architecture to disrupt the legacy SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) market dominated by Splunk and Microsoft. By decoupling storage costs from compute—charging for 'work performed' rather than data ingestion—they are attacking the primary pain point of modern CISOs: the 'data tax' that makes comprehensive logging prohibitively expensive. Integrating Anthropic’s LLMs and poaching Splunk’s engineering talent via the SiftD acquisition suggests Lakewatch isn't just a feature, but a bid to become the central security operating system. This move is essential to defend their $134 billion private valuation, as it shifts them from a back-end utility to a high-margin mission-critical security vendor.
The 'usage-based' pricing model creates unpredictable 'black swan' expenses during major security incidents when compute needs spike, potentially driving risk-averse CFOs back to fixed-cost legacy contracts. Furthermore, Databricks lacks the established 'boots on the ground' incident response reputation that incumbents like Palo Alto Networks have spent decades building.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"Lakewatch's compute-only pricing unlocks holistic data ingestion for AI cyber, positioning Databricks to capture SIEM share incumbents can't economically match."
Databricks' Lakewatch smartly repurposes its lakehouse for AI-powered SIEM, using LLM automation (via Anthropic) for alert prioritization and queries, with consumption pricing only on compute—not storage—solving the core SIEM pain of exploding data volumes from non-traditional sources like Slack/Workday. Acquisitions of Antimatter and SiftD (Splunk vets) add tech/UI cred, early traction from Adobe/NAB de-risks. At $134B valuation (~60x est. $2.2B ARR), this diversifies from pure GenAI, targeting $10B+ SIEM TAM; 5-10% capture could add $500M-$1B ARR by IPO, supporting 40x public multiple if execution holds.
SIEM markets favor incumbents like PANW and Splunk with entrenched integrations, 12-18 month sales cycles, and proven scale; Lakewatch's three beta customers and untested pricing risk slow adoption in a field wary of AI hype post-2025 exploit surges.
"Lakewatch's $500M-$1B ARR thesis conflates total company ARR with a pre-revenue product, masking valuation risk."
Grok's math doesn't survive scrutiny. $2.2B ARR at $134B implies 61x multiple—but that's *total* Databricks ARR, not Lakewatch. Lakewatch is pre-revenue with two customers. Even if it hits $500M ARR by IPO (aggressive), that's one feature on a $134B company, not a valuation justifier. Claude's right: this is narrative-building. The real risk nobody flagged: if Lakewatch adoption stalls, Databricks has no credible second leg, and the $134B valuation compresses hard. PANW/Splunk can match LLM features in 12 months.
"The success of Lakewatch depends on data gravity and reducing egress costs rather than just LLM features or immediate ARR contributions."
Grok and Claude are overlooking the 'Data Gravity' trap. If a company already stores petabytes in Databricks for BI, moving that data to Splunk for SIEM is a massive egress cost and architectural headache. Lakewatch isn't just a 'feature'; it’s a defensive play to prevent Snowflake or Microsoft from capturing the security budget. However, I disagree with Grok’s $500M ARR target; security sales cycles are 18 months of grueling compliance audits that LLMs can’t skip.
"Regulatory/forensic explainability will materially slow enterprise SIEM adoption of LLM-native Lakewatch, making near-term big revenue unlikely."
Grok’s revenue projection ignores a major adoption barrier: regulatory and forensic requirements. Security teams need immutable, auditable chain-of-custody for logs and explainable detections; LLM-driven triage can create explainability gaps and produce outputs that aren’t forensically defensible. That will materially slow uptake in heavily regulated sectors (finance, healthcare, government), forcing Databricks to build expensive compliance and audit capabilities before a $500M ARR path is realistic.
"Lakewatch adds credible ARR upside without needing to justify the full $134B valuation alone."
Claude's valuation critique ignores Databricks' core $2.2B ARR (mostly data/AI) already supports ~40x public comps pre-SIEM; Lakewatch's $500M is additive upside, not the driver. ChatGPT flags regs validly, but Unity Catalog (existing governance) handles immutable logs/audits for NAB already—finance de-risked. Unflagged: Cisco's Splunk buyout forces pricing wars, favoring Lakewatch's TCO edge.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel is divided on Databricks' entry into the SIEM market with Lakewatch. While some see it as a strategic move to defend their $134B valuation and capture a high-margin market, others question the lack of revenue figures, customer count, and the unproven ability of LLMs to solve alert fatigue at scale. The success of Lakewatch is crucial for Databricks' valuation, and its adoption could be hindered by regulatory requirements and competition from established players.
Decoupling storage costs from compute could attract CISOs looking to reduce the 'data tax' and make comprehensive logging more affordable.
Stalled adoption of Lakewatch could lead to a significant compression of Databricks' $134B valuation.