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 technical support of Arbor DDoS is good."
"Our customers are very happy when we provide them with the interface... They can check how many attacks they have faced and how many attacks have been blocked."
"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."
"Valuable features include simple and centralized management of user access and capabilities, as well as Web 2.0 interactive attack alerting, traffic visualization, and mitigation service control."
"The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium."
"Reporting is quite good. There are several pages of reporting on DDoS attacks, and you can find all the details that you need."
"It has an easy-to-understand GUI...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Companies that live from their presence on the internet will get a very high return on investment from Arbor."
"The solution is very user-friendly and very easy to use."
"It allows me to see all the traffic on my network."
"This solution can protect Layer 3, Layer 4 and Layer 7 attacks of applications for us."
"I find the interface easy to use."
"We have researched them all, and it's a good solution all around."
"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."
"It is a user-friendly product in terms of monitoring and updating policies."
"There is definitely room for improvement in third-party intelligence and integrations."
"Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved."
"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."
"There is always room for improvement for any product or service. If we can bring in more agility when deploying services, that is definitely a scope which we can work towards. Nowadays, everything is being offered as a service model. It is not that we have to deploy the physical hardware, many things move up to the cloud, or even can be delivered in the VNS form in the customer's environment as well. So, in that space, if we can add more features to make it more seamless for customers to use and make it available through some marketplace, not only at the hyperscalers, but also for any on-prem deployment, that definitely would be a big plus."
"The solution needs to enhance its features to compete with other tools."
"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."
"We need a SaaS model for the solution."
"The regional support here in African could improve, such as marketing and account managers."
"The solution can be a little more user-friendly and it can be more affordable."
"I would like to see analytics, big data."
"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."
"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."
"There aren't really any aspects of the solution we are unhappy with. It's been a positive experience overall."
"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, Imperva DDoS, Corero and A10 Thunder TPS, whereas Fortinet FortiDDoS is most compared with VMware NSX, Radware DefensePro, Fortinet FortiWeb, Edgio Global CDN 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.
