We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Imperva DDoS 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 has an easy-to-understand GUI...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable features include the traffic categorization and control of the traffic. The filtering of the traffic is very precise. When you want to stop some traffic, you precisely stop that traffic."
"The most valuable feature is mitigation, which can blackhole the IP."
"The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium."
"I like all the features together as a whole."
"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."
"Reporting is quite good. There are several pages of reporting on DDoS attacks, and you can find all the details that you need."
"The auto-mitigation, that signaling feature, where it automatically raises an alarm that a line is under attack, is important. The upstream service provider will then do something to reduce the load on our internet lines. The fact that it's automated means I don't have to sit and always be looking at threats coming through. It does it almost automatically, without any intervention by me."
"Imperva Incapsula has many valuable features. One, it protects the top 10 OWAS vulnerability, the open web application software platform, this is standard. Secondly, it protects against broken authentication. As well, it has remote execution of code."
"Provides Anti-DDoS protection, as well as other protections like SQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting, and antiscanner. These types of protection are valuable to the business due to the daily attacks on our portals, and that often cannot be seen without a tool like this."
"It is an effective threat mitigation tool."
"The three-second service level agreement is already better than the competition."
"Its unique interface for managing security performance and ease of use are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Scalability is pretty easy on the base platform. You just add another, and you're ready to go."
"An improvement has been to our website: It increases the speed of our response, the capacity of the site, and optimizes the bandwidth."
"On the activity log, I can see the exact details, the visit, and the threat."
"Arbor DDoS could improve out-of-the-box reporting, it could be better."
"When it comes to some false positives, we need to tweak the system from time to time. There is room for improvement when it comes to the actual mitigation because of some false positives."
"The solution's IT support needs improvement."
"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."
"Arbor's SSL decryption is confusing and needs external cards to be installed in the devices. This is not the best solution from an architectural point of view for protecting HTTPS and every other protocol that is SSL encrypted."
"There should be an automatic way to configure it to monitor traffic and decide which is an attack and which is not. In Arbor, you need to tweak and set all parameters manually, whereas in Check Point DDoS Protector, you can select the lowest parameters, and over the weeks, Check Point DDoS Protector will learn the traffic and you can then tighten some of the parameters to decide which traffic is regular and which is malicious."
"With Arbor DDoS, its integration issues with other technologies or other vendors' technologies is an area of concern that could be improved."
"On the application layer, they could have a better distributed traffic flow. They could improve that a bit. For network data it is very effective, but the application layer can be improved."
"The cost could be lower; our end clients need to have a high budget to purchase this solution."
"Certificate management could be improved."
"Imperva now offers add-ons to add functionality, but I would like to see these included in the product, even if it would cost more."
"The salespeople tend to exaggerate its capabilities, which can cost you money if you don't verify the information."
"The rules surrounding the making of web applications could be improved."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"Incapsula services also provides load balancing services for their service IP address environment. So far, with monitoring their services, the IP address was only changed once."
"We would like them to hire people in Sweden because it's quite hard when people are sitting in the UK or Belgium because some of the customers really want them to be local."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 7th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. 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 Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Corero, A10 Thunder TPS and Nexusguard DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Radware DefensePro, AWS WAF and Fastly. See our Arbor DDoS vs. Imperva DDoS 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.