We performed a comparison between Corero 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."This is a hybrid solution."
"It is a good solution. Its vendor support is the most valuable. It is simple and works well if you have Juniper MX routers."
"The DDoS protection features are valuable."
"SmartWall devices occupy only one-fourth of the width of a rack unit, making them very easy to install."
"It is an agnostic and transparent inline platform, which means that the maximum visibility of the symmetric and asymmetric traffic is available, even allowing bidirectional detection of the attack."
"The most valuable feature of Corero is its ability to handle smaller attacks in terms of the amount of volume and time. You can handle almost 100 perfect of the attacks locally."
"On the real time, you can see live traffic, which is flowing into our website."
"It is an effective threat mitigation tool."
"The setup of Imperva DDoS was easy."
"On the site security, I can see which countries have incidents, whether it was a robot attack, a real human user, or non-human user."
"Integration with IBM AS/400 and Db2 is okay."
"Setup was straightforward, very simple. I only entered the domain and Incapsula returned the DNS data that I needed to change for the protection to be configured."
"Scalability is pretty easy on the base platform. You just add another, and you're ready to go."
"This product is a reliable defense from malicious attacks on a network environment."
"Juniper is known in our country, but it is not very popular. There is also not enough information about Corero. Our enterprise and financial sectors don't know about this solution. They need to provide more information and do more marketing for this solution in our country."
"The approach taken by Corero is to partner with other organizations in order to address volumetric attacks that cannot be handled by the hardware installed in the infrastructure. Corero does not have a solution for these attacks, so they are looking for partners to help them manage them. This approach is supplemented by local hardware, but the main focus is on the partnerships. It would be beneficial to have a more complete solution."
"The product must provide more Layer 7 capabilities."
"It could use support in Spanish."
"Lacks international presence."
"A limited tool if you're looking to customize."
"Certificate management could be improved."
"It's quite expensive."
"The cost could be lower; our end clients need to have a high budget to purchase this solution."
"I would like to have support for SSL management and secure DNS."
"The salespeople tend to exaggerate its capabilities, which can cost you money if you don't verify the information."
"It needs to be improved every time there are new attacks."
"The product could use a broader scope in the area of policies."
Corero is ranked 18th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 5 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 7th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews. Corero is rated 8.4, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Corero writes "Effect local attack handling, intuitive interface, and scalable". 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". Corero is most compared with Arbor DDoS, Cloudflare, Radware Cloud DDoS Protection Service, Radware DefensePro and Nexusguard DDoS Protection, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Arbor DDoS, Radware DefensePro and AWS WAF. See our Corero 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.