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."It's very flexible and we can easily deploy it to our network. It's very user-friendly. We can do everything via the web interface and troubleshoot easily from the CLI. It's not complicated."
"Arbor DDoS offers security features that automatically detect and prevent DDoS attacks."
"With real-time packet capture features, you can easily and quickly response."
"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 stability is okay and we have not encountered problems with the solution."
"Reporting is quite good. There are several pages of reporting on DDoS attacks, and you can find all the details that you need."
"It is fully mitigating the attacks. We've dealt with other ones where we didn't necessarily see that. The detection is very good. It's also very simple to use. Arbor is a single pane of glass, whereas with other solutions you might have a detection pane of glass and then have to go to a separate interface to deal with the mitigation. That single pane of glass makes it much simpler."
"The technical support of Arbor DDoS is good."
"The solution already has security profiles and it can protect from DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks."
"I find the interface easy to use."
"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."
"The solution is very user-friendly and very easy to use."
"This solution can protect Layer 3, Layer 4 and Layer 7 attacks of applications for us."
"We have researched them all, and it's a good solution all around."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud DDoS scrubbing capability."
"I would also like more visibility into their bad actor feeds, their fingerprint feeds. We try to be good stewards of the internet, so if there are attacks, or bad actors within our networks, if there were an easier way for us to find them, we could stop them from doing their malicious activity, and at the same time save money."
"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."
"I think the diversity of protection is extremely limited. It must be expanded in future upgrades and versions."
"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."
"Implementation could be better."
"There is definitely room for improvement in third-party intelligence and integrations."
"Arbor DDoS could improve out-of-the-box reporting, it could be better."
"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 primary area for improvement is the on-premises capacity limit, currently fixed at 10 GB."
"The solution can be a little more user-friendly and it can be more affordable."
"Alerts and reporting features must be improved."
"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."
"All the thresholds that need to be configured should be included in the default so that user will not forget or misconfigure."
"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 web interface could be much better."
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, Corero, Imperva DDoS and Nexusguard DDoS Protection, whereas Fortinet FortiDDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Fortinet FortiWeb, VMware NSX, Edgio 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.