We performed a comparison between Arbor DDoS and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudflare, NETSCOUT, Akamai and others in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection."It has an easy-to-understand GUI...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The product allows us to check real-time progress, including latency and network activities."
"Predefined filters/techniques to easily stop the attacks and start mitigation."
"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."
"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."
"We also use it by serving our customers' cloud signaling services with on-premise APS devices."
"The solution is easy to use."
"We are able to respond quickly and prevent DDoS attacks."
"The solution can scale."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"The server appliance is good."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"If we want to see live traffic, we can see do so. But once an attack that lasts for five minutes is done, the data is no longer there. It would be an improvement if we could see recent traffic in the dashboard. We can check and download live traffic, but a past attack, with all the details, such as why it happened and how to mitigate and prevent such future attacks, would be helpful to see."
"The following areas need improvement: opening and tracking support tickets, online support resources, software upgrades/updates and replacement media, and event management guidelines."
"The solution's shortcomings are related to its documentation, so it's an area that needs to improve."
"For troubleshooting problems, it's not so intuitive. It's not straightforward. This is the core of their kernel, so they need to improve it a little bit... In F5 I have full control of everything."
"The solution's IT support needs improvement."
"Implementation could be better."
"It is an expensive product, so there is room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"The regional support here in African could improve, such as marketing and account managers."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."
"As far as future inclusions, it would be useful to display more threat intelligence, such as the actual area of the threat and the origin of the web crawling (Tor and Dark Web)."
"A better depth of view, being able to see deeper into the management process, is what I'd like to see."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
"The world is currently shifting to AI, but FIreEye is not following suit."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. 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 Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, Corero and Fortinet FortiDDoS, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access and Fortinet FortiGate.
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.
