We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudflare, NETSCOUT, Akamai and others in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection."It's just one dashboard with mitigation. You decide which mitigation you want and at what threshold to do this or that. Its operation is pretty simple. It's easy."
"Reporting is quite good. There are several pages of reporting on DDoS attacks, and you can find all the details that you need."
"We can reduce the bandwidth to minimize the attack level. If we see more than 2.5 GBs we drop it directly."
"We use it not only for DDoS detection and protection, but we also use it for traffic analysis and capacity planning as well. We've also been able to extend the use of it to other security measures within our company, the front-line defense, not only for DDoS, but for any kind of scanning malware that may be picked up. It's also used for outbound attacks, which has helped us mitigate those and lower our bandwidth costs..."
"In the GUI, the packet capture is a very good option, as is the option to block an IP address."
"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."
"Companies that live from their presence on the internet will get a very high return on investment from Arbor."
"The stateless device format means that the box is very strong for preventing DDoS attacks."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"Application categorization is the most valuable feature for us. Application filtering is very interesting because other products don't give you full application filtering capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email."
"It allows us to be more hands off in checking on emails and networking traffic. We can set up a bunch of different alerts and have it alert us."
"The server appliance is good."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"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."
"The solution's shortcomings are related to its documentation, so it's an area that needs to improve."
"Auto mitigation is a feature provided when DDoS is observed on any of link/customer (configured under auto mitigation). It automatically starts mitigation with default filters. In default filter mode, there could be an impact on the customer’s link,"
"If we want to see live traffic, we can see do so. But once an attack that lasts for five minutes is done, the data is no longer there. It would be an improvement if we could see recent traffic in the dashboard. We can check and download live traffic, but a past attack, with all the details, such as why it happened and how to mitigate and prevent such future attacks, would be helpful to see."
"The following areas need improvement: opening and tracking support tickets, online support resources, software upgrades/updates and replacement media, and event management guidelines."
"The solution could be more granular to include logs per second and enhanced pipeline monitoring for router licenses."
"They should improve the reporting section and make it a little bit more detailed. I would like to have much better and more detailed reports."
"Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
"Based on what we deployed, they should emphasize the application filtering and the web center. We need to look deeper into the SSM inspection. If we get the full solution with that module, we don't need to get the SSM database from another supplier."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"Improvements could be achieved through greater integration capabilities with different firewall solutions. Integrating with the dashboard itself for different firewalls so users can also pull tags into their firewall dashboard."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 14th in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 35 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. 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 Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, Corero and Fortinet FortiDDoS, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Fortinet FortiGate, Zscaler Internet Access and Cisco Secure Network Analytics.
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.