No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

NETSCOUT Arbor DDoS Protection & Mitigation vs Nexusguard DDoS Protection comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 12, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

NETSCOUT Arbor DDoS Protect...
Ranking in Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Nexusguard DDoS Protection
Ranking in Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection
24th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection category, the mindshare of NETSCOUT Arbor DDoS Protection & Mitigation is 5.8%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Nexusguard DDoS Protection is 2.3%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
NETSCOUT Arbor DDoS Protection & Mitigation5.8%
Nexusguard DDoS Protection2.3%
Other91.9%
Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1331304 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director Of Research And Development at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Automated threat intelligence and flow-based mitigation have improved our DDoS defense
A very useful feature in Arbor DDoS is its ability to send flow spec announcements to routers. For example, if it is clear that a Layer 3 or Layer 4 attack is occurring and the attack pattern is identified through source and destination IP addresses and ports, you can generate flow spec filters. These filters are transferred through BGP to border routers, which automatically build filters, mitigating the attack even at the network's boundary and preventing it from reaching the TMS. This allows the TMS to focus on other tasks. This is a highly effective feature that can mitigate huge volumetric attacks; for example, we experienced a 32-gigabit attack, and all those 32 gigabits were dropped by our border routers, not by Arbor DDoS itself. The flow spec announcement was generated by Arbor DDoS, and as far as I know, the same technology is used by Radware, but it comes under a different feature and a different license. At the time, we were told that flow spec mitigation was an additional very expensive license to purchase from Radware, while Radware included everything in one package.
ShashikaKodikara - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Cybersecurity at Technovage Solution
A solution requiring straightforward maintenance while remaining cost-effective compared to its competitors in the market
I am not in a position to speak about the areas where the solution needed improvement because I resigned during the implementation phase. At that time, the implementation was ongoing, and everything seemed to be going well. Using the solution, our team managed to transfer a couple of routers through a few areas. However, I believe the migration is still ongoing. Nonetheless, the first phase of the implementation was successful before my departure. There was a certain level of performance degradation in the solution, which I don't know if it can be tuned. This is because I was working for a short period on the solution. In my experience, it is an area that can be improved while also considering the stability and scalability aspects of the solution. If one wants to scale up, then one needs to change their plan. However, the thing is, one can always go for the larger scale based on one's anticipation of future traffic.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Because this Arbor DDoS product is the best, I do not need to spend time supporting it."
"The stateless device format means that the box is very strong for preventing DDoS attacks."
"Its scalability is big. It is for large deployments of big organizations and service providers."
"Very user-friendly GUI Simplest way of mitigation 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."
"It's an excellent product DDoS protection against attacks."
"The solution is easy to use."
"I am convinced with the kind of scalability Arbor brings in; the Cloud subscription, which is available as one of its features, makes the scalability limitless."
"Cloud Diversion is another good feature packaged with the whole solution. When attack traffic is detected, Cloud Diversion triggers to automatically route our prefix to Nexusguard’s scrubbing center, ensuring that all attack traffic is dropped in the shortest time possible."
"Nexusguard has given us confidence that we are protected against any outside attacks."
"The managed service allows us to confidently rely on Nexusguard’s professional team to take relevant actions as and when required to make sure DDoS attacks are successfully mitigated, ensuring 100% uptime of our service."
"Based on the support received for implementation, I rate the solution's technical support a nine out of ten."
"Nexusguard has exponentially improved the availability of our services because we don't have to worry much about any threats or DDoS attacks towards our services."
"Filters can be customized depending on the characteristics of the attack traffic. This feature has made it easier for Nexusguard's SOC team to further isolate any specific attack that can't be blocked by pre-configured mitigation."
"The support team was helpful."
 

Cons

"A small improvement could be a better reporting system."
"There is some room for AI to take place."
"The solution needs to enhance its features to compete with other tools."
"The upgrade process is mildly complex requiring treatment of the custom embedded OS separately from the application. The correlation of the underling OS to the application version can be easily missed."
"The solution's IT support needs improvement."
"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."
"Based on my experience and feedback from colleagues, Arbor can make better use of the product because you have to spend a lot of time finding information in a huge number of papers."
"Arbor Pravail APS devices do not sync features or config the backup enough. This needs to be improved."
"One of the features that should be added to the next release is report generation."
"One of the features that should be added to the next release is report generation. Currently, reports can be downloaded every month and are only available at the beginning of each month. It would be nice to generate the reports based on specific dates that we prefer and not have to wait until the next month for the current month’s report."
"The mitigation scope of Origin Protection is not fully efficient as there could be delays in activating the countermeasures."
"One thing that we would like to improve from them is to provide more training to SOC team for them to have a deep understanding of the solution so that they would always be ready to answer anything without the need to escalate queries to senior personnel."
"There was a certain level of performance degradation in the solution, which I don't know if it can be tuned...In my experience, it is an area that can be improved while also considering the stability and scalability aspects of the solution."
"The solution must provide features for the post-processing of the traffic type and the traffic quality."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I'm a technical guy. But I know it's expensive compared to its competitors. After you have the on-premise solution, for your solution to be effective you have to subscribe to an "upper level," so there's another cost. There is also a subscription to cloud services, which is another cost."
"The price of Arbor DDoS depends on many parameters. It depends on the physical capacity of the environment, and it is not a straight-line price. It's fairly competitive in the market on the price."
"Because the solutions from competitors are very different, it's not easy to compare. However, the licensing from Arbor is clear and understandable and the pricing is reasonable when looking at the market, in general."
"The solution is a bit costly if you're a small organization, but I think it's worth the price that they are charging."
"The price of this solution is a little high in the African market, it should be lower."
"Arbor's products are very expensive. Their competitors are cheap when compared with Arbor."
"It is an expensive product. I use this product for its different features."
"Pricing is slightly on the higher side."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one represents a cheap option, and ten represents an expensive option, I would rate the solution a seven in terms of cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection solutions are best for your needs.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
22%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Media Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise29
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Arbor DDoS?
The prices for Arbor DDoS are expensive. The licensing is subscription-based. From our sales department, they discuss that prices are very high.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Xtel Communications
21st Century Technologies, Netpluz, REDtone, SNOC, StarHub, aamra
Find out what your peers are saying about NETSCOUT Arbor DDoS Protection & Mitigation vs. Nexusguard DDoS Protection and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.