We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Nexusguard DDoS Protection 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."It has an easy-to-understand GUI...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"There were huge attacks in October, around 62 attacks at 30 gigabits per second, at one of our banks. We used Arbor DDoS to mitigate these attacks, and it performed great."
"We have taken on the Arbor Cloud subscription, which is really useful because you secure yourself for anything beyond your current mitigation capacity. This is a really good feature of Arbor that is available."
"Companies that live from their presence on the internet will get a very high return on investment from Arbor."
"The solution provides good protection against volumetric DDoS attacks."
"Analytics and its attack mitigation capabilities are valuable features of the solution."
"The stateless device format means that the box is very strong for preventing DDoS attacks."
"Its scalability is big. It is for large deployments of big organizations and service providers."
"Based on the support received for implementation, I rate the solution's technical support a nine out of ten."
"Cloud Diversion is another good feature packaged with the whole solution. When attack traffic is detected, Cloud Diversion triggers to automatically route our prefix to Nexusguard’s scrubbing center, ensuring that all attack traffic is dropped in the shortest time possible."
"The managed service allows us to confidently rely on Nexusguard’s professional team to take relevant actions as and when required to make sure DDoS attacks are successfully mitigated, ensuring 100% uptime of our service."
"Filters can be customized depending on the characteristics of the attack traffic. This feature has made it easier for Nexusguard's SOC team to further isolate any specific attack that can't be blocked by pre-configured mitigation."
"The support team was helpful."
"The product could have end-to-end platform visibility."
"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."
"An improvement would be to provide information on how pricing is done on different customer levels."
"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."
"Because we had some routers that were somewhat old, they were not integrated with Arbor. They did not support the NetFlow version that Arbor was running. That was a challenge. We had to upgrade the routers. Some backward-compatibility would be helpful."
"There should be an automatic way to configure it to monitor traffic and decide which is an attack and which is not. In Arbor, you need to tweak and set all parameters manually, whereas in Check Point DDoS Protector, you can select the lowest parameters, and over the weeks, Check Point DDoS Protector will learn the traffic and you can then tighten some of the parameters to decide which traffic is regular and which is malicious."
"The solution needs to enhance its features to compete with other tools."
"Arbor DDoS could improve out-of-the-box reporting, it could be better."
"One of the features that should be added to the next release is report generation. Currently, reports can be downloaded every month and are only available at the beginning of each month. It would be nice to generate the reports based on specific dates that we prefer and not have to wait until the next month for the current month’s report."
"There was a certain level of performance degradation in the solution, which I don't know if it can be tuned...In my experience, it is an area that can be improved while also considering the stability and scalability aspects of the solution."
"The mitigation scope of Origin Protection is not fully efficient as there could be delays in activating the countermeasures."
"The solution must provide features for the post-processing of the traffic type and the traffic quality."
"One thing that we would like to improve from them is to provide more training to SOC team for them to have a deep understanding of the solution so that they would always be ready to answer anything without the need to escalate queries to senior personnel."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Nexusguard DDoS Protection is ranked 13th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 5 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Nexusguard DDoS Protection is rated 9.4. 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 Nexusguard DDoS Protection writes "A solution requiring straightforward maintenance while remaining cost-effective compared to its competitors in the market". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, Corero and Palo Alto Networks WildFire, whereas Nexusguard DDoS Protection is most compared with Cloudflare, Cloudflare DDoS, Corero, Imperva DDoS and Fortinet FortiDDoS. See our Arbor DDoS vs. Nexusguard DDoS Protection 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.