We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Corero 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."Companies that live from their presence on the internet will get a very high return on investment from Arbor."
"The most valuable features include the traffic categorization and control of the traffic. The filtering of the traffic is very precise. When you want to stop some traffic, you precisely stop that traffic."
"In the GUI, the packet capture is a very good option, as is the option to block an IP address."
"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 can reduce the bandwidth to minimize the attack level. If we see more than 2.5 GBs we drop it directly."
"Analytics and its attack mitigation capabilities are valuable features of the solution."
"Predefined filters/techniques to easily stop the attacks and start mitigation."
"Arbor DDoS offers security features that automatically detect and prevent DDoS attacks."
"The most valuable feature of Corero is its ability to handle smaller attacks in terms of the amount of volume and time. You can handle almost 100 perfect of the attacks locally."
"It is an agnostic and transparent inline platform, which means that the maximum visibility of the symmetric and asymmetric traffic is available, even allowing bidirectional detection of the attack."
"It is a good solution. Its vendor support is the most valuable. It is simple and works well if you have Juniper MX routers."
"The DDoS protection features are valuable."
"This is a hybrid solution."
"SmartWall devices occupy only one-fourth of the width of a rack unit, making them very easy to install."
"The solution could be more granular to include logs per second and enhanced pipeline monitoring for router licenses."
"The solution needs to enhance its features to compete with other tools."
"The support got worse after NETSCOUT acquired Arbor."
"I think the diversity of protection is extremely limited. It must be expanded in future upgrades and versions."
"The implementation should be made easier."
"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."
"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."
"Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved."
"The product must provide more Layer 7 capabilities."
"It could use support in Spanish."
"The approach taken by Corero is to partner with other organizations in order to address volumetric attacks that cannot be handled by the hardware installed in the infrastructure. Corero does not have a solution for these attacks, so they are looking for partners to help them manage them. This approach is supplemented by local hardware, but the main focus is on the partnerships. It would be beneficial to have a more complete solution."
"Lacks international presence."
"Juniper is known in our country, but it is not very popular. There is also not enough information about Corero. Our enterprise and financial sectors don't know about this solution. They need to provide more information and do more marketing for this solution in our country."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Corero is ranked 17th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 5 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Corero 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 Corero writes "Effect local attack handling, intuitive interface, and scalable". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, A10 Thunder TPS and Nexusguard DDoS Protection, whereas Corero is most compared with Cloudflare, Radware Cloud DDoS Protection Service, Radware DefensePro, Nexusguard DDoS Protection and Lumen DDoS Mitigation. See our Arbor DDoS vs. Corero 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.