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."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."
"I like all the features together as a whole."
"Valuable features include simple and centralized management of user access and capabilities, as well as Web 2.0 interactive attack alerting, traffic visualization, and mitigation service control."
"The solution provides good protection against volumetric DDoS attacks."
"The auto-mitigation, that signaling feature, where it automatically raises an alarm that a line is under attack, is important. The upstream service provider will then do something to reduce the load on our internet lines. The fact that it's automated means I don't have to sit and always be looking at threats coming through. It does it almost automatically, without any intervention by me."
"The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The stability is okay and we have not encountered problems with the solution."
"It is a good solution. Its vendor support is the most valuable. It is simple and works well if you have Juniper MX routers."
"SmartWall devices occupy only one-fourth of the width of a rack unit, making them very easy to install."
"The DDoS protection features are valuable."
"This is a hybrid solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"On the main page there are alerts that we are unable to clear, even though the issue has been resolved."
"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."
"The look and feel of the management console is a little old, excessively simple. If you compare it with other solutions, the look and feel of the console is like you're using technology from five or six years ago. It doesn't show all the technology that is actually behind it. It looks like an older solution, even though it is not."
"The solution needs to enhance its features to compete with other tools."
"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."
"An improvement to Arbor DDoS would be to make evaluation licenses and virtual machines available."
"The product could have end-to-end platform visibility."
"The product must provide more Layer 7 capabilities."
"It could use support in Spanish."
"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."
"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."
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Corero is ranked 18th 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, Fortinet FortiDDoS and A10 Thunder TPS, whereas Corero is most compared with Cloudflare, Radware DefensePro, Radware Cloud DDoS Protection Service, Lumen DDoS Mitigation and Nexusguard DDoS Protection. 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.