We performed a comparison between AWS Shield and Radware DefensePro 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."The solution's ease of use is the most valuable feature."
"It is integrated with AWS. So, it gives you a good first step."
"I am impressed with the product's multiple features like security."
"The product has a good mechanism to analyze trends and trigger events."
"Technologically simple and effective."
"The important features include automated protection and defense against many attacks, it's important that our networks are protected in the Radware cloud."
"The product is very effective and performs well on devices."
"All of our traffic has to pass through the appliance, so we can very quickly mitigate the attack. This is a very valuable feature. On top of that, it's not only volumetric attack protection that the solution offers, but also layer 7 attack protection as well."
"The initial setup is easy."
"It has not gone down for a quite long time. It's working fine."
"The reporting is very good and provides us with a comprehensive description of where attacks are emanating from."
"The pricing is reasonable. It's not overly expensive."
"The product is expensive."
"The product should give users more flexibility to customize their security policies according to their requirements."
"The management of it is a bit hard. If you don't engineer it on the front side, it is hard to go back in and change it. It could be improved in terms of architecture requirements and then ongoing support requirements as a secondary component to it. People tend to set up things like this, and they just expect it to work without the care and feeding that needs to go back into it either from an application team or a network environment team."
"We end up having to pay extra for features that AWS adds that we don't need."
"The inability to access local technical support during our business hours poses a significant inconvenience."
"Right now, we have DefensePro 6. The only complaint I have is that SSL inspection, when activated, consumes a lot of resources on the machine. We are currently reviewing a possible change to DefensePro X, the new version, which has a separate module with its processors."
"They need to increase the limit of devices that we can manage."
"I would like to see more graphics within the dashboard. Right now, you are required to buy tools in order to have graphical representation for your monitoring."
"The dashboard could be updated."
"If they would go to a cloud-based approach, that would give much more flexibility in terms of working with them."
"It could incorporate more intelligence for reacting with web site visitors."
"There needs to be more reporting."
AWS Shield is ranked 9th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 4 reviews while Radware DefensePro is ranked 6th in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 21 reviews. AWS Shield is rated 8.6, while Radware DefensePro is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS Shield writes "The solution automatically scales according to traffic, only takes minutes to deploy, and is maintenance-free". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware DefensePro writes "Regular signature update with good reporting and analytics". AWS Shield is most compared with Cloudflare, Cloudflare DDoS, Azure DDoS Protection, Akamai App and API Protector and Prolexic, whereas Radware DefensePro is most compared with Arbor DDoS, Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, Fortinet FortiDDoS and Check Point DDoS Protector. See our AWS Shield vs. Radware DefensePro 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.