We compared Cisco ACI and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation based on our users' reviews in five categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: When comparing Cisco ACI and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco ACI offers a network-centric approach with strong integration capabilities and a focus on applications. It has a more complex setup process but becomes easier to configure and manage once deployed. However, it is expensive, has a non-user-friendly GUI, and faces security and segmentation issues. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, on the other hand, has a simple setup process, good flexibility, and strong customer support. However, there is limited information on pricing and licensing, and it may pose challenges for large organizations.
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the Call Manager."
"Micro-segmentation is the solution’s most valuable feature."
"We had different networks and combined them with ACI so we could have the control of one controller-based network. Also, everything is combined now."
"What's most valuable in Cisco ACI is that it isn't like the legacy infrastructure where you have a lot of complexity in a TTR architecture. What I like most about Cisco ACI is that you can control those devices from a single console, even if you have three hundred devices. You can manage the entire infrastructure from a single point of contact, so Cisco ACI is a time saver. Another exclusive feature of Cisco ACI is its API interface that lets you enhance automation within the environment. You can manage your entire data center from a single interface through Cisco ACI. If you want to upgrade three hundred devices in one click, you can do that, and within one hour, all three hundred devices will be upgraded. I also like that Cisco keeps enhancing the product by adding different features, so there have been five major releases of Cisco ACI. Another valuable feature of the solution is that it's more user-friendly than Aruba and Juniper."
"Cisco ACI can separate networks with a buoy interface. That is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the unified fabric."
"It is very stable. It works 100 percent of the time."
"The stability is perfect. We have had no problems with Cisco ACI."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Compared to VMware, it needs more virtualization technologies."
"I would like to be able to test the upgrades in a simulation before implementing them in production because not everyone has a lab."
"The tool's initial deployment is complex and takes five hours to complete."
"We're still in the process of doing the migration. We haven't migrated completely all of our applications out of our legacy into it yet. It was challenging at first, but getting easier now that we're starting to get into it."
"I would like to see a smoother transition from existing systems."
"Because this is new technology, which requires a different way of thinking, it can be hard to understand. Therefore, I would like more documentation or education."
"The only drawback that we are seeing is the user interface is still a little complex and difficult to use. It needs a more user-friendly interface."
"In the new version of 4.0, the management groups for updating the software is not the best way to do it. It was better in 3.2."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Cisco ACI is ranked 2nd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 96 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Cisco ACI is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Zero Networks Microsegmentation, whereas Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Nuage Networks, Juniper Contrail Networking and HPE SDN. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Cisco ACI report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.