Wazuh vs Security Onion vs CrowdSec: Which Security Monitoring Tool Should You Run in Your Homelab?
Compare Wazuh, Security Onion, and CrowdSec for homelabs: hardware footprint, setup time, strengths, and the best choice for real-world self-hosted labs.
Author
James Reeves
FTC disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.
Key Takeaways
- If you want one default answer for a typical homelab, pick Wazuh. It gives you the best balance of host visibility, alerting depth, and manageable hardware requirements.
- If your main pain point is internet-facing abuse on reverse proxies, SSH, or exposed apps, CrowdSec is the lightest and fastest way to start blocking bad traffic.
- If you want serious packet-level network security monitoring and you have spare x86 hardware, mirrored traffic, and patience, Security Onion is in a different class - but it is also much heavier.
- The biggest mistake I see is treating these as direct substitutes. They are not. Wazuh is host-first, CrowdSec is response-first, and Security Onion is network-first.
- For many homelabs, the smartest setup is Wazuh on important hosts plus CrowdSec at the edge. Security Onion only makes sense when you are intentionally building a mini SOC.
If you want the direct answer up front, here it is: Wazuh wins for most homelabs, CrowdSec wins for lightweight edge protection, and Security Onion only wins when deep network telemetry is your actual goal.
That sounds obvious once you say it plainly, but a lot of comparison posts bury the lede. They stack features in a giant checklist and pretend every reader has the same workload. That is not how real homelabs work. A two-node Proxmox setup with a reverse proxy, a NAS, and half a dozen Docker services has very different needs from a network lab with a managed switch, mirror ports, and a habit of collecting packet captures just because you can.
I went through the official docs, hardware guidance, and a handful of operator writeups side by side to answer the question that actually matters: which tool gives you the most useful security signal for the least operational pain?
A quick note on methodology before we get into the numbers. Public docs for these tools do not publish clean apples-to-apples dashboard latency benchmarks, so I am not going to invent them. Instead, I am comparing the measurements and sizing data that are actually documented: minimum hardware footprints, storage expectations, deployment model, and time-to-first-useful-visibility based on official install complexity plus published homelab field reports. That is a better buying guide anyway.
My comparison methodology
I scored each platform on six criteria that matter in a homelab more than they matter in a vendor bake-off:
- Time to first useful detection - how long before you are getting signal you can act on.
- Hardware footprint - CPU, RAM, storage, and whether ARM is even an option.
- Scope of visibility - host telemetry, log analysis, active blocking, packet inspection, and alert correlation.
- Operational overhead - patching, tuning, false positives, and day-two maintenance.
- Growth path - whether the tool still makes sense once your lab gets bigger or noisier.
- Homelab fit - whether it solves a real home-operator problem instead of just looking impressive in a dashboard.
For source data, I leaned on the official Wazuh quickstart requirements, the official Security Onion hardware requirements, and the official CrowdSec getting started guide. I also cross-checked those numbers against field reports from operators comparing Wazuh and CrowdSec, plus a practical homelab walkthrough that ran both together on a dedicated security node.
Wazuh vs Security Onion vs CrowdSec at a glance
| Category | Wazuh | CrowdSec | Security Onion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | Most homelabs that want host visibility and SIEM-style alerting | Lightweight edge blocking for exposed services | Deep network security monitoring and packet analysis |
| Primary strength | Host-based security monitoring | Fast automated remediation | Full network telemetry and threat hunting |
| Official documented baseline | 4 vCPU, 8 GiB RAM, 50 GB storage for 1-25 agents on quickstart | 1 CPU core, 100 MB RAM, 1 GB disk recommended minimum | Eval: 4 cores, 8 GB RAM, 200 GB disk, 2 NICs. Standalone: 4 cores, 24 GB RAM, 200 GB disk, 2 NICs |
| Architecture bias | Host-first | Log-and-enforce at the edge | Network-first |
| ARM support | Yes, AArch64 supported for central components | Yes, amd64/arm64/armhf supported | No - x86-64 only |
| Typical homelab setup time | 45-90 minutes | 15-30 minutes | 2-4 hours |
| Storage appetite | Moderate and grows with indexed alerts | Very light | Heavy, especially if you keep packet data |
| Maintenance burden | Medium | Low to medium | High |
| My verdict | Best overall | Best lightweight add-on | Best specialist tool |
The practical footprint benchmark
Because these three tools solve different parts of the problem, raw feature counts do not help much. The more useful benchmark is what it costs to get useful signal into your lab.
| Practical metric | Wazuh | CrowdSec | Security Onion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first useful protection | 45-90 min | 15-30 min | 2-4 hr |
| Minimum documented RAM | 8 GiB quickstart for 1-25 agents | 100 MB recommended minimum | 8 GB for Eval, 24 GB for Standalone |
| Minimum documented storage | 50 GB for 90 days indexed data | 1 GB recommended minimum | 200 GB minimum |
| First deployment model I would recommend | Single all-in-one VM or dedicated mini PC | Install on reverse proxy or edge host first | Separate x86 box with mirrored traffic |
| Dashboard / management feel | Full SIEM-style web UI | Light engine plus console and bouncers | Serious NSM stack, heavier operational feel |
| Best signal type | Host events, auth logs, FIM, vuln visibility | Abuse detection and fast banning | Packets, Zeek, Suricata, network forensics |
Those setup-time figures are operator estimates rather than vendor benchmarks, but they match the install surface area pretty well. CrowdSec is small and modular. Wazuh is still manageable, but indexer plus dashboard plus agents adds real complexity. Security Onion is not hard in a conceptual sense, but it asks more from your hardware, your network design, and your patience.
What each tool is actually good at
Wazuh
Wazuh is the best fit for the average homelab because it answers the questions most people eventually care about:
- Who failed SSH logins on this box for the last six hours?
- Did a config file change when it should not have?
- Which host is behind on patching or showing a vulnerable package?
- What happened on this Proxmox host, Docker VM, or Ubuntu service node before things got weird?
That is why I think Wazuh has the highest practical value. The official quickstart numbers are also surprisingly reasonable. Wazuh documents 4 vCPU, 8 GiB RAM, and 50 GB as enough for an all-in-one quickstart covering 1-25 agents with 90 days of indexed alert data. For a homelab, that is a very approachable starting point.
It is also more flexible than people give it credit for. You can run it as the full stack with indexer and dashboard, or run a leaner deployment and keep your expectations honest. One homelab writeup I reviewed notes that 4 GB RAM works for a full Wazuh stack with indexer, and 2 GB is possible without the integrated indexer on a dedicated security node. I would still rather give it 8 GB and stop thinking about it, but that field report lines up with the general pattern: Wazuh is heavier than CrowdSec, lighter than Security Onion, and still very doable on decent mini-PC hardware.
If you already care about host context, Wazuh usually becomes your anchor tool.
CrowdSec
CrowdSec wins the lightweight prize by a mile.
The official getting started guide calls it out clearly: 1 CPU core, 100 MB of free RAM, and 1 GB of free disk space as recommended minimums. That is tiny compared with the other two. It also runs on amd64, arm64, and armhf, which matters if you like Raspberry Pi-class boxes or small ARM nodes for edge jobs.
The real reason people like CrowdSec, though, is not just footprint. It is how quickly you can get from "I should probably protect this reverse proxy" to "that IP is now banned." CrowdSec reads logs, applies behavior-based scenarios, and hands enforcement to bouncers for firewalls, reverse proxies, or web stacks. In practice, that means it is very good at dealing with the noisy, repetitive junk that shows up the second you expose anything to the internet.
What CrowdSec does not give you is a deep host-centric investigation story. It is not trying to be your whole SIEM. It is not trying to replace file integrity monitoring, vulnerability context, or rich endpoint telemetry. That is why I do not recommend it as a solo answer when someone asks for full security monitoring. I do recommend it when someone asks for the fastest way to cut down abusive traffic on Nginx, Traefik, SSH, or a public app.
Security Onion
Security Onion is a different kind of commitment.
Its value is obvious if you want network security monitoring that goes beyond log scraping. It brings together tools like Zeek, Suricata, and the Elastic stack into a serious platform for network visibility, intrusion detection, hunting, and forensics. If you want to inspect mirrored traffic, keep packet data, correlate events, and learn how a real NSM workflow feels, Security Onion is excellent.
The tradeoff is the hardware bill and operational complexity. The official hardware page is refreshingly blunt. Even the Eval install needs 4 CPU cores, 8 GB RAM, 200 GB storage, and 2 NICs. The full Standalone install jumps to 4 cores, 24 GB RAM, 200 GB storage, and 2 NICs. It also only supports x86-64. No ARM shortcut here.
That tells you everything you need to know. Security Onion is not something I casually bolt onto an already crowded mini PC and forget about. It is a project. A good project, if network telemetry is the point. But still a project.
Pros and cons
Wazuh pros
- Best all-around visibility for small to mid-size homelabs
- Good fit for Proxmox hosts, VMs, Docker nodes, and general Linux servers
- Official quickstart sizing is realistic for homelab-scale use
- Strong host-based features: auth logs, file integrity monitoring, vulnerability context, and alerting
- Easier to justify as a daily tool than a lab toy
Wazuh cons
- Heavier than CrowdSec
- Can become dashboard-heavy if you only wanted basic edge blocking
- Tuning rules and noise takes some work
- Not a replacement for network packet visibility
CrowdSec pros
- Extremely light footprint
- Fast time to value
- Great at turning noisy logs into automatic bans
- Excellent fit for reverse proxies, SSH, and internet-facing services
- Easy to pair with existing firewall and proxy workflows
CrowdSec cons
- Not a full SIEM
- Less useful for deep host investigation
- You still need another tool if you want broad endpoint telemetry
- Can feel too narrow if your goal is full security observability
Security Onion pros
- Best network-centric visibility of the three
- Strong threat-hunting and forensic story
- Excellent if you actually want Zeek/Suricata-style telemetry in one place
- Serious learning platform for anyone building SOC-like skills at home
Security Onion cons
- By far the heaviest option
- Requires more deliberate network design
- 200 GB storage minimum is not a joke
- x86-64 only
- Overkill for many small labs
Who should pick Wazuh
Pick Wazuh if your homelab looks like this:
- A Proxmox host or two
- Several Linux VMs and containers
- A NAS you care about
- A reverse proxy, maybe some public apps
- A desire to know what changed on hosts, not just which IP knocked on the door
Wazuh is also the better pick if you have already started hardening the basics. If you are working through things like Docker security hardening, tightening HTTPS and certificate management, or refining your Proxmox firewall rules, Wazuh complements that work nicely because it tells you whether those hosts are behaving the way you think they are.
My default recommendation for most readers is a dedicated Wazuh VM with enough disk to keep alert history useful. It is the best balance of evidence, context, and day-two practicality.
Who should pick CrowdSec
Pick CrowdSec if your most immediate problem is exposure, not visibility.
That usually means:
- You run Traefik, Nginx Proxy Manager, or Caddy publicly
- SSH is exposed or reachable from the internet
- You are tired of bots hammering login endpoints
- You want a low-footprint control that reacts quickly without building a mini SOC
CrowdSec is also a great fit if you already cleaned up your network layout with proper segmentation. If you have gone down the VLAN and network segmentation path, CrowdSec becomes a clean way to add active enforcement at the edges that matter most.
If you ask me for the smallest useful first step in homelab security monitoring, I will often say: install CrowdSec on the edge first, then decide whether you need Wazuh later.
Who should pick Security Onion
Pick Security Onion if the network itself is the project.
That means you want things like:
- Mirrored traffic from a managed switch
- Zeek logs you can actually hunt through
- Suricata alerts you plan to tune
- Packet capture for incident review
- A home environment that doubles as a security lab
Security Onion makes sense for the reader who is deliberately building analyst skills or wants to understand east-west traffic and lateral movement patterns in a way endpoint tools will never show. It does not make sense if what you really wanted was a smarter Fail2ban replacement or a basic host alerting platform.
The smartest real-world setup for most homelabs
This is where a lot of comparison posts fall short: they act like you must crown exactly one winner and throw the other two away.
In practice, the best small-lab architecture is often:
- CrowdSec on the edge or reverse proxy layer for quick blocking
- Wazuh on the important hosts for context and history
- No Security Onion at all, unless you truly need network forensics
That split matches how the tools are built. CrowdSec is excellent at saying, "this source is behaving badly, ban it now." Wazuh is excellent at saying, "this host changed, this login failed, this file moved, this package is vulnerable, and here is the timeline." Those are complementary strengths.
Security Onion only enters the chat when you want to go beyond host and edge decisions into packet-level network monitoring. If that sentence makes you smile instead of groan, you are the target user. If not, skip it without guilt.
Recommended gear for this kind of deployment
If you are building a small dedicated security node, these are the three hardware categories I would prioritize first:
- Intel N100 mini PC search on Amazon - a strong low-power starting point for Wazuh or a combined Wazuh plus CrowdSec node.
- Samsung 870 EVO 1TB SSD search on Amazon - cheap insurance if you want better endurance and saner alert-history storage than whatever random SATA drive was lying around.
- CyberPower UPS search on Amazon - because a security stack that disappears during a power blip is not doing you many favors.
I would also revisit your backup discipline before you go all-in on a logging stack. Security data is useful, but only if the systems generating it survive the boring failures. That is the same reason I keep pushing basic hardening, segmentation, and sane certificates before fancy tooling.
Final verdict
Here is the short version after stripping away marketing language:
- Best overall winner: Wazuh
- Best lightweight add-on: CrowdSec
- Best specialist lab platform: Security Onion
Wazuh wins because it solves the broadest set of real homelab problems without demanding the kind of hardware and network plumbing that Security Onion expects. CrowdSec is easier to deploy and dramatically lighter, but it is narrower. Security Onion is extremely capable, but the documented 200 GB storage floor and much larger RAM requirements tell you exactly where it belongs: in a lab where network security monitoring is a deliberate focus, not a side quest.
If you are unsure, start here:
- Pick CrowdSec if you mainly need fast blocking on exposed services.
- Pick Wazuh if you want the best single-tool security monitoring platform for a typical homelab.
- Pick Security Onion only if you know why packet capture, Zeek, and mirrored traffic matter to you.
That is the decision tree I would use for my own lab, and it is the one I recommend to clients when they want something useful rather than something flashy.
FAQ
Is Wazuh too heavy for a small homelab?
Not usually. The official quickstart targets 1-25 agents on 4 vCPU, 8 GiB RAM, and 50 GB storage, which is very reasonable for a dedicated VM or small mini PC. It is heavier than CrowdSec, but still practical for most labs.
Can I run CrowdSec and Wazuh together?
Yes, and for many labs that is the best answer. CrowdSec can handle fast blocking at the edge while Wazuh gives you host-level context, alert history, and broader security telemetry.
Does Security Onion make sense on a Raspberry Pi or ARM box?
No. Security Onion officially supports x86-64 only. If you want a lightweight ARM-friendly option, CrowdSec is the obvious better fit.
Which tool is best for Proxmox and Docker hosts?
Wazuh is the best single answer because it gives you host visibility across the systems that actually run your workloads. CrowdSec is still excellent alongside it if those services are internet-facing.
Do I need Security Onion if I already have Wazuh?
Only if you want network-centric telemetry that Wazuh does not provide. Wazuh is host-first. Security Onion shines when packet analysis, network hunting, and deeper NSM workflows are part of the goal.