We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Imperva DDoS 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."With real-time packet capture features, you can easily and quickly response."
"Reporting is quite good. There are several pages of reporting on DDoS attacks, and you can find all the details that you need."
"We are able to respond quickly and prevent DDoS attacks."
"The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium."
"The stability is okay and we have not encountered problems with the solution."
"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 artificial intelligence feature is most appreciated. This solution can lower the throughput and clear the traffic, which is something really important for us. It also provides good protection. It is user-friendly, and its integration has also been really fast. We have many critical applications, and it was easy to integrate Arbor DDoS with our website, mobile application, and web banking."
"There is no need to have an appliance in house for the services because it is on the cloud."
"An improvement has been to our website: It increases the speed of our response, the capacity of the site, and optimizes the bandwidth."
"It's very pretty easy to onboard the URL."
"Gives us the ability to trace each connection, and to have logs to be able to differentiate between a positive and a false-positive intruder action."
"Integration with IBM AS/400 and Db2 is okay."
"The technical support is excellent."
"It fits our requirements, as well as our budget."
"It is a stable solution."
"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."
"An issue which needs to be addressed concerns information I received of attacks on the radar and Arbor, allegedly, not taking any action."
"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."
"Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved."
"The solution's shortcomings are related to its documentation, so it's an area that needs to improve."
"The solution could be more granular to include logs per second and enhanced pipeline monitoring for router licenses."
"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."
"Implementation could be better."
"Imperva always needs to adjust to new versions of cyber attacks, it needs to be faster, improve the resiliency of the software of the solution."
"I miss being able to integrate the dashboard with other BI tools we are using. We have to export and import data to be able to present it, and doing so is a lot of work."
"It would be better if we were able to manage and apply changes to multiple websites/web applications, and search WAF logs for multiple websites, via the Incapsula dashboard."
"I would like to see automated reporting to improve visibility."
"Analytics in the area of risk need to be improved to supply more information to the users for creating better environments."
"Imperva now offers add-ons to add functionality, but I would like to see these included in the product, even if it would cost more."
"The salespeople tend to exaggerate its capabilities, which can cost you money if you don't verify the information."
"Imperva should have more points of presence in Africa."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Imperva DDoS is ranked 7th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 74 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Imperva DDoS is rated 8.8. 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 Imperva DDoS writes "I like the content monitoring feature which I haven't seen in other WAF solutions". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Corero, A10 Thunder TPS and Fortinet FortiDDoS, whereas Imperva DDoS is most compared with Cloudflare, Akamai, Radware DefensePro, AWS WAF and Fastly. See our Arbor DDoS vs. Imperva DDoS 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.