AWS Shield vs Fortinet FortiDDoS comparison

"We have integrated the tool with Active Directory. The most important feature is that it's transparent and doesn't degrade the performance of our solution. Additionally, it's easy to configure, which is crucial for us. It's easy to use and set up and stops attacks on our servers. We haven't encountered any attack problems because the solution stops them in real-time. AWS Shield specifically focuses on defending against denial-of-service attacks, making it a great solution for that type of threat."

"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 is easy to use."

"The product has a good mechanism to analyze trends and trigger events."

"The solution's ease of use is the most valuable feature."

"The product's initial setup phase was really easy."

"The solution is very user-friendly and very easy to use."

"The solution already has security profiles and it can protect from DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks."

"We have researched them all, and it's a good solution all around."

"I find the interface easy to use."

"It allows me to see all the traffic on my network."

"Among its key features: Detects and mitigates DDoS attacks at L3 to L7; negligible to zero false-positives; Generates and sends reports without the need for an expensive third-party solution."

"This solution can protect Layer 3, Layer 4 and Layer 7 attacks of applications for us."

"The product is expensive."

"The time taken to detect anomalies must be reduced."

"The product should give users more flexibility to customize their security policies according to their requirements."

"The product needs to improve its logs and reports to make it read better."

"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 tool needs to focus more on the area of application traffic management, where it currently has some shortcomings."

"Alerts and reporting features must be improved."

"The solution can be a little more user-friendly and it can be more affordable."

"The web interface could be much better."

"All the thresholds that need to be configured should be included in the default so that user will not forget or misconfigure."

"I find that there have been issues in the past year with the solution hanging. It freezes often."

"I would like to see analytics, big data."

"The only thing they need to do is to automate it. Today, you must create tools that do not require the use of an expert or anyone with special skills."

"The tool is cheap."

"The cost depends on traffic each month, so on average, it costs us between US$200 and US$300 per month."

"It depends on your subscription level and the volume that you're spending with AWS. So, it is very relative to the consumption alignment in your subscription level. It is a well-constructed, scalable pricing option, but it is relative to how much you're spending on AWS. Because the more you spend, typically, the more you get off on services like this. I find it to be comparable to other solutions."

"We pay $3000 per month for the solution."

"The tool's pricing is good."

"The product’s pricing needs improvement."

"It's quite pricey."

"The solution is reasonably priced."