We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Fortinet FortiSandbox 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."Arbor has a global ranking in reliability and credibility. They are very unique and can respond to a very wide scope of threats from their global deployment."
"The most valuable feature is mitigation, which can blackhole the IP."
"With real-time packet capture features, you can easily and quickly response."
"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."
"We also use it by serving our customers' cloud signaling services with on-premise APS devices."
"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."
"Arbor DDoS's best feature is that we can put the certificates in, and it will look at layer seven and the encrypted traffic and do the required signaling."
"The solution is flexible, easy to implement and has an efficient technical support team."
"The GUI makes administration tasks straightforward."
"Fortinet FortiSandbox's most valuable feature is the security it provides against threats, such as ransomware. Additionally, it integrates well with APIs."
"The technical support is very good."
"The solution is easy to manage."
"The solution is very good because it catches a lot of threats in emails."
"Fortinet FortiSandbox is faster than other sandbox solutions."
"The analysis engine is a very valuable feature."
"The solution extracts an attached file before reaching the user and notifies the user if there's something malicious in the attachment received along with an email."
"We need a SaaS model for the solution."
"The implementation should be made easier."
"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."
"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."
"I think the diversity of protection is extremely limited. It must be expanded in future upgrades and versions."
"There is some room for AI to take place."
"An improvement would be to provide information on how pricing is done on different customer levels."
"A small improvement could be a better reporting system."
"There could be more templates and a higher number of simulated VMs to configure more use cases. Sometimes we need to configure many use cases in many different environments, and if the number of VMs that we configure is limited, we have to remove some and reconfigure the environment if we need another environment."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiSandbox is complex. You cannot only deploy Fortinet FortiSandbox without deploying the stack of Fortinet solutions. The implementation and integration are challenging tasks with the device and placement in the network. We needed to do POC and offloading testing."
"For additional features, maybe a form of execution pain files in a non-virtual environment because it has threats that identify when it is being run in a virtual machine."
"The use cases in Fortinet FortiSandbox are not good. It is difficult to upload a custom VM for Fortinet FortiSandbox. The integration of Fortinet FortiSandbox with other Fortinet or FortiGate firewalls is not good. VMs are already installed in the hardware and are working fine, but we tried to approve the custom VM many times but did not succeed."
"Fortinet FortiSandbox can improve by decreasing the time of analysis response. Other solutions have a better response time, such as WildFire."
"It can be difficult if you need to use the Command Line Interface (CLI). It's much easier if you only have to deal with the GUI."
"I don't know if it is viable to do an improvement like this. When there are passwords in the password-protected files, it can't scan them or do things like this. I don't know if an algorithm or something else could make it better. Nowadays, many legitimate office documents have passwords."
"The response time from technical support should be improved."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Fortinet FortiSandbox is ranked 4th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 36 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiSandbox is rated 8.2. 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 FortiSandbox writes "Light and powerful solution design; useful to have". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Corero, Imperva DDoS and A10 Thunder TPS, whereas Fortinet FortiSandbox is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Trellix Network Detection and Response, Check Point SandBlast Network, Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and Fortinet FortiEDR.
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.
