Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Arbor DDoS vs Palo Alto Networks WildFire comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Arbor DDoS ensures 100% uptime and cost-effective threat mitigation, boosting revenue and reputation for Polish telecoms and ISPs.
Sentiment score
7.5
Palo Alto Networks WildFire efficiently prevents threats, reduces costs significantly, and integrates seamlessly for comprehensive real-time security.
The service generates a low rate of false positives, reducing the overhead of managing false positive events.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.5
Arbor DDoS support is competent and recommended, despite some delays, and receives ratings between seven and nine.
Sentiment score
7.3
Palo Alto Networks WildFire support excels for large companies, with varied quality and responsiveness for others, depending on region.
The technical support team is very effective in resolving issues.
Although the team is good, they are not fast, and they lack the skills to manage dynamic attackers.
Support for Arbor DDoS deserves a rating of 10 because when there is a problem with implementation, the people I work with are the best.
There is a lack of SLA adherence, and third-party partners do not provide prompt responses.
The service response times are aligned with standards, responding within a few hours based on the problem's criticality.
The support is quite difficult to access promptly.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Arbor DDoS is praised for scalability, effective management, and seamless integration, despite some concerns about pricing.
Sentiment score
8.2
Palo Alto Networks WildFire excels in adaptability, scalability, and seamless integration, meeting diverse organizational demands and high-performance standards.
This would enhance the knowledge about scalability options available for Arbor DDoS, making it more accessible and useful for users.
They need to purchase boxes monthly to expand their bandwidths, and these new boxes can be added to the installed base very easily.
I find Arbor DDoS to be very scalable.
Wildfire is highly scalable.
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable, and I give it a nine for scalability.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
Arbor DDoS is highly stable and effective, with minor issues during setup, and typically rated eight or nine out of ten.
Sentiment score
8.4
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is highly reliable, stable, and efficient, excelling in large-scale deployments and seamless cloud integration.
It is a very stable product.
Arbor DDoS is very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

Arbor DDoS needs improved scalability, user interface, integration, pricing, support, and automation for better legitimate traffic protection.
Palo Alto Networks WildFire needs improvements in cost, user interface, ease of deployment, integration, detection capabilities, and support efficiency.
I would like to see an option to decrypt the traffic with Arbor DDoS, as some clients are interested in this, particularly for application layer attacks on port 443.
Enhancing the handshakes between Arbor DDoS and third-party solutions is essential for obtaining better and real-time data that supports any organization’s support team effectively.
I would like to see a roadmap for one or two years, and it is tough to predict what will happen in that timeframe without a clearer description.
The dashboard should provide better visibility, especially in showing how many files are sent to Wildfire and their findings.
The support could be improved, as it takes a while to get assistance from the vendors.
 

Setup Cost

Arbor DDoS pricing is high, catering to enterprises with options like perpetual and subscription, yet needs more competitive pricing.
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is valued for advanced security despite high costs, preferred by enterprises but challenging for smaller firms.
The prices for Arbor DDoS are expensive.
For some customers, the cost is expensive, but for enterprises looking to protect their services, it is affordable.
I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of affordability.
 

Valuable Features

Arbor DDoS provides robust attack mitigation with a user-friendly GUI, AI capabilities, and real-time traffic visualization for enhanced security.
WildFire offers sandboxing, App-ID, and automation, excelling in threat detection with real-time updates and seamless integration.
That is an attack over 10 gigabit per second, and if an attack enters the telecommunication network, that will be a disaster for their customer, their services, and so on.
We have many updates for the library of different attacks, and they have artificial intelligence that automatically learns the process during different attacks.
The platform offers quick mitigation of attacks because Arbor DDoS uses BGP Flowspec, enabling very quick mitigation.
Integrating Palo Alto Networks WildFire with various security protocols similar to a firewall has significantly improved the overall threat detection capabilities in our organization.
The most valuable feature of Wildfire is its sandboxing capability for examining suspicious files or locations.
 

Categories and Ranking

Arbor DDoS
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
55
Ranking in other categories
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (3rd)
Palo Alto Networks WildFire
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
69
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Arbor DDoS and Palo Alto Networks WildFire aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Arbor DDoS is designed for Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection and holds a mindshare of 13.1%, down 13.5% compared to last year.
Palo Alto Networks WildFire, on the other hand, focuses on Advanced Threat Protection (ATP), holds 11.6% mindshare, down 12.4% since last year.
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

Hamada Elewa - PeerSpot reviewer
Users have experienced comprehensive protection against DDoS threats while enjoying seamless integration
The most valuable feature of Arbor DDoS is that it is based in most of the ISPs all over the world, and Egyptian ISPs are one of them. If a customer who is getting internet connectivity from one of the ISPs has an Arbor at the end, it will be integrated with the ISP Arbor. It's some sort of closing all the cycle with Arbor DDoS, from the ISP sides and from your side as a customer. Traffic analysis with Arbor DDoS is very good; it is brilliant. They act in a different way compared to others, and the vendor support is very good. The main benefits Arbor DDoS provides to users include stopping DDoS attacks, which is the biggest nightmare for all customers.
AjayKumar17 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced cybersecurity with advanced sandboxing and effective in controlling DNS issues
Improvements are needed in the UI part. The dashboard should provide better visibility, especially in showing how many files are sent to Wildfire and their findings. This information should be integrated with the Dashboard so that system admins can see what is happening. Furthermore, technical support needs a lot of improvement, particularly in terms of responsiveness and adhering to service level agreements.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user206346 - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 11, 2015
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto Networks
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto: Management Goodies You often have comparisons of both firewalls concerning security components. Of course, a firewall must block attacks, scan for viruses, build VPNs, etc. However, in this post I am discussing the advantages and disadvantages from both vendors concerning…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
I would say if it’s an ISP that will build a scrubbing center, Netscout/Arbor is a good solution. In all other solutions, Imperva is a great choice.
Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
Arbor would be the best bid, apart from Arbor, Palo Alto and Fortinet have good solutions. As this is an ISP, I would prefer Arbor.
What do you like most about Arbor DDoS?
The quality of the technical support provided by Arbor DDoS is premium.
How does Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall compare with Palo Alto Networks Wildfire?
The Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is a very powerful and very complex piece of anti-viral software. When one considers that fact, it is all the more impressive that the setup is a fairly straightf...
Which is better - Wildfire or FortiGate?
FortiGate has a lot going for it and I consider it to be the best, most user-friendly firewall out there. What I like the most about it is that it has an attractive web dashboard with very easy nav...
How does Cisco ASA Firewall compare with Palo Alto's WildFire?
When looking to change our ASA Firewall, we looked into Palo Alto’s WildFire. It works especially in preventing advanced malware and zero-day exploits with real-time intelligence. The sandbox featu...
 

Also Known As

Arbor Networks SP, Arbor Networks TMS, Arbor Cloud for ENT
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Xtel Communications
Novamedia, Nexon Asia Pacific, Lenovo, Samsonite, IOOF, Sinogrid, SanDisk Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudflare, Radware, NETSCOUT and others in Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.