We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and Arbor 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."All the solution's features are very good."
"I have contacted the support team of Akamai... I am happy with their responses and answers to my problems."
"It gives us a report of traffic. It gives us a report of the day-to-day URL traffic, and it also gives an individual report. If we reach out to Akamai, they give us the IPs as well."
"Everything will be handled by Akamai's system before it reaches our infrastructure."
"The solution easily identifies, delays, or allows business traffic."
"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"The CDN and the WAF features are the best."
"Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"Its scalability is big. It is for large deployments of big organizations and service providers."
"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 can reduce the bandwidth to minimize the attack level. If we see more than 2.5 GBs we drop it directly."
"Arbor has the ability to learn and self-create the appropriate profile for each customer."
"The solution is flexible, easy to implement and has an efficient technical support team."
"Analytics and its attack mitigation capabilities are valuable features of the solution."
"The most valuable feature is mitigation, which can blackhole the IP."
"The stability is okay and we have not encountered problems with the solution."
"A lot of piracy happens in India and other countries. If there is a product for protection from piracy, it would be great. For example, there are multiple hackers that hack your event, and there are some channels that pirate and publish the event on some other website. We protect our streaming through DRM and different technologies. We are also protecting the website, but hacking is still happening. If they can work on protecting from piracy, it would be great."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit."
"In terms of precedence of Akamai rules, the last one is implemented. That is the one that is operational. If two rules contradict, the last one is implemented. We had a clash, but it was really tough to find that out. I would like to have a rulebook because, in their architecture documentation, it is not mentioned anywhere that if two rules clash, the last one works, and if it does not work, then what to do. This is something we were debating today with their tech support. With AWS, we get documents for the issues so that they do not occur in the future. Akamai's support and knowledge base needs to be improved."
"The product should provide a secure NTP."
"The custom rules must be improved."
"Customer support has room for improvement."
"It's fine for a simple tool, but as I recall, if you encounter a lot of bots, scrapers, and other things, you'll need this tool bot and this other thing they offer called Bot Manager."
"If we talk about application layer attacks, including WAF, CloudFlare is leading. Akamai can focus a bit more on the application layer attacks and how to protect them."
"The solution could be more granular to include logs per second and enhanced pipeline monitoring for router licenses."
"There is definitely room for improvement in third-party intelligence and integrations."
"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."
"On the main page there are alerts that we are unable to clear, even though the issue has been resolved."
"We need a SaaS model for the solution."
"The support got worse after NETSCOUT acquired Arbor."
"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."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 3rd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 27 reviews while Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Akamai App and API Protector writes "Easy to learn and gives us a report of traffic". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Arbor DDoS writes "A critical solution for security, as it includes features that can automatically detect and prevent DDoS attacks". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Prolexic and Cloudflare, whereas Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Corero, Imperva DDoS and Azure DDoS Protection. See our Akamai App and API Protector vs. Arbor 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.