We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Symantec Advanced Threat Protection 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."The technical support of Arbor DDoS is good."
"It provides packet capture and we can block or whitelist whichever IPs we need to. Whatever traffic we want to block - and we get IPs from internal teams and from national teams - we block at the Arbor level only, because if it gets to the firewall then firewall bandwidth will be taken."
"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."
"The solution is flexible, easy to implement and has an efficient technical support team."
"The solution provides good protection against volumetric DDoS attacks."
"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."
"There are a number of valuable features in this product, like Cloud Signaling and Threat Intelligence feeds."
"Predefined filters/techniques to easily stop the attacks and start mitigation."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"Technical support is very responsive. You just have to open a ticket. They respond in a timely manner. Their response is good. I'm satisfied."
"What I like most about Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is its notification capability."
"Symantec Endpoint Protection provides end-to-end protection. Along with antivirus protection, it has a lot of key areas, including intrusive prevention, firewall features, and application and device control."
"The most valuable feature is NetFlow threat protection."
"It has certainly helped out our audit efforts because we each stay compliant in terms of various security standards."
"They manage to solve detection quite nicely. There is some rather elaborate detection compared to other providers."
"All of the solution's features are quite valuable for us. We especially like the threat protection it provides."
"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 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."
"An improvement would be to provide information on how pricing is done on different customer levels."
"The product could have end-to-end platform visibility."
"I think the diversity of protection is extremely limited. It must be expanded in future upgrades and versions."
"For troubleshooting problems, it's not so intuitive. It's not straightforward. This is the core of their kernel, so they need to improve it a little bit... In F5 I have full control of everything."
"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."
"The administration interface needs a lot of improvement. It should be UI based, and simple. They need to improve it. It's pretty much not that friendly compared to what we were using as Bitdefender before. It's okay but is improving, actually."
"Entire threat protection is not available for the advanced features."
"It should be able to collect information if the agent is disabled."
"It's a strange situation where the infrastructure of the consumer or customer is behind some kind of firewall and they have always used some kind of customized proxy. In this situation, the ATP has a very tough time to pass the information to the cloud and back. To fix, it requires a more elaborate and complex configuration for that particular case."
"An improvement could be made on the reporting because then it would be easier to collect information and submit it for compliance."
"Symantec appliances need improvement. The whole appliance environment is a robust system and it needs a massive amount of storage space. If you have to increase or speed up the background storage it's a pretty complicated process. The scalability and sizing is critical, and if you do it wrong you run into issues pretty quickly."
"Scalability could be better."
"The support has dropped down to a five out of ten."
More Symantec Advanced Threat Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is ranked 21st in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 14 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is rated 7.8. 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 Symantec Advanced Threat Protection writes "Provides end-to-end antivirus protection and has good stability ". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Corero, Imperva DDoS and A10 Thunder TPS, whereas Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Check Point SandBlast Network, Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and Trellix Network Detection and Response.
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.
