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."The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium."
"With real-time packet capture features, you can easily and quickly response."
"The stateless device format means that the box is very strong for preventing DDoS attacks."
"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."
"The solution provides good protection against volumetric DDoS attacks."
"Arbor DDoS is easy to use, provides effective blocking of DDoS attacks, and can be used for DNS, web, and main servers. Additionally, this solution is far easier to operate than others solutions, such as Fortinet DDoS."
"Analytics and its attack mitigation capabilities are valuable features of the solution."
"The solution is flexible, easy to implement and has an efficient technical support team."
"The solution already has security profiles and it can protect from DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks."
"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."
"I find the interface easy to use."
"The product's initial setup phase was really easy."
"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."
"It is a user-friendly product in terms of monitoring and updating policies."
"The product allows the users to adjust the thresholds."
"A small improvement could be a better reporting system."
"I would also like more visibility into their bad actor feeds, their fingerprint feeds. We try to be good stewards of the internet, so if there are attacks, or bad actors within our networks, if there were an easier way for us to find them, we could stop them from doing their malicious activity, and at the same time save money."
"It is an expensive product, so there is room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"The implementation should be made easier."
"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."
"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."
"The look and feel of the management console is a little old, excessively simple. If you compare it with other solutions, the look and feel of the console is like you're using technology from five or six years ago. It doesn't show all the technology that is actually behind it. It looks like an older solution, even though it is not."
"The product’s pricing needs improvement."
"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."
"There aren't really any aspects of the solution we are unhappy with. It's been a positive experience overall."
"Alerts and reporting features must be improved."
"I find that there have been issues in the past year with the solution hanging. It freezes often."
"The primary area for improvement is the on-premises capacity limit, currently fixed at 10 GB."
"I would like to see analytics, big data."
"All the thresholds that need to be configured should be included in the default so that user will not forget or misconfigure."
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 12 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.