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."We can reduce the bandwidth to minimize the attack level. If we see more than 2.5 GBs we drop it directly."
"The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium."
"I like all the features together as a whole."
"Arbor has the ability to learn and self-create the appropriate profile for each customer."
"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."
"Using standard BGP, NetFlow and SNMP ensure wide compatibility. There are also peering traffic reports that can help identify upstream peering opportunities. The ATLAS aggregation service allows us to contribute to the global DDoS data and benefit from overall trends."
"We are able to respond quickly and prevent DDoS attacks."
"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."
"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."
"Based on the support received for implementation, I rate the solution's technical support a nine out of ten."
"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."
"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 solution's shortcomings are related to its documentation, so it's an area that needs to improve."
"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."
"The solution's IT support needs improvement."
"The solution could be more granular to include logs per second and enhanced pipeline monitoring for router licenses."
"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."
"It is an expensive product, so there is room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"There is definitely room for improvement in third-party intelligence and integrations."
"The mitigation scope of Origin Protection is not fully efficient as there could be delays in activating the countermeasures."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution must provide features for the post-processing of the traffic type and the traffic quality."
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, Corero, Imperva DDoS and F5 BIG-IP Advanced Firewall Manager (AFM), whereas Nexusguard DDoS Protection is most compared with Cloudflare, Corero, Cloudflare DDoS, Fortinet FortiDDoS and Imperva DDoS. 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.