We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Fortinet FortiDDoS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It provides packet capture and we can block or whitelist whichever IPs we need to. Whatever traffic we want to block - and we get IPs from internal teams and from national teams - we block at the Arbor level only, because if it gets to the firewall then firewall bandwidth will be taken."
"Reporting is quite good. There are several pages of reporting on DDoS attacks, and you can find all the details that you need."
"Using standard BGP, NetFlow and SNMP ensure wide compatibility. There are also peering traffic reports that can help identify upstream peering opportunities. The ATLAS aggregation service allows us to contribute to the global DDoS data and benefit from overall trends."
"It's very flexible and we can easily deploy it to our network. It's very user-friendly. We can do everything via the web interface and troubleshoot easily from the CLI. It's not complicated."
"It is fully mitigating the attacks. We've dealt with other ones where we didn't necessarily see that. The detection is very good. It's also very simple to use. Arbor is a single pane of glass, whereas with other solutions you might have a detection pane of glass and then have to go to a separate interface to deal with the mitigation. That single pane of glass makes it much simpler."
"Analytics and its attack mitigation capabilities are valuable features of the solution."
"In the GUI, the packet capture is a very good option, as is the option to block an IP address."
"Its scalability is big. It is for large deployments of big organizations and service providers."
"This solution can protect Layer 3, Layer 4 and Layer 7 attacks of applications for us."
"The solution is very user-friendly and very easy to use."
"The protection resources and the support are valuable features of the solution."
"Among its key features: Detects and mitigates DDoS attacks at L3 to L7; negligible to zero false-positives; Generates and sends reports without the need for an expensive third-party solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was really easy."
"We have researched them all, and it's a good solution all around."
"It is a user-friendly product in terms of monitoring and updating policies."
"The solution already has security profiles and it can protect from DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks."
"An improvement to Arbor DDoS would be to make evaluation licenses and virtual machines available."
"The support got worse after NETSCOUT acquired Arbor."
"For troubleshooting problems, it's not so intuitive. It's not straightforward. This is the core of their kernel, so they need to improve it a little bit... In F5 I have full control of everything."
"The implementation should be made easier."
"The upgrade process is mildly complex requiring treatment of the custom embedded OS separately from the application. The correlation of the underling OS to the application version can be easily missed."
"Sometimes it blocks legitimate traffic. If a legitimate user is trying to access the server continuously, the product suspects that this is a DoS traffic file. That is a case where it needs to improve. It needs machine-learning."
"The solution's shortcomings are related to its documentation, so it's an area that needs to improve."
"Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved."
"All the thresholds that need to be configured should be included in the default so that user will not forget or misconfigure."
"The web interface could be much better."
"The primary area for improvement is the on-premises capacity limit, currently fixed at 10 GB."
"The only thing they need to do is to automate it. Today, you must create tools that do not require the use of an expert or anyone with special skills."
"Alerts and reporting features must be improved."
"The product’s pricing needs improvement."
"The tool needs to focus more on the area of application traffic management, where it currently has some shortcomings."
"I find that there have been issues in the past year with the solution hanging. It freezes often."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Fortinet FortiDDoS is ranked 16th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 13 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiDDoS is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Arbor DDoS writes "A critical solution for security, as it includes features that can automatically detect and prevent DDoS attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiDDoS writes "Offers good technical support but has poor scalability". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Corero, Imperva DDoS and Nexusguard DDoS Protection, whereas Fortinet FortiDDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Fortinet FortiWeb, VMware NSX, Edgio and Cloudflare. See our Arbor DDoS vs. Fortinet FortiDDoS report.
See our list of best Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection vendors.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.