We compared VMware NSX and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: After comparing VMware NSX and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, it is evident that VMware NSX offers comprehensive and superior virtualized network software with advanced features such as virtual switch control, micro-segmentation, and distributed firewall. Conversely, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is praised for its simplicity in setup, flexibility in creating network security zones, and strong customer support.
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"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."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"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."
"The real bonus is the fact that we can secure applications, all the way down to the individual services, on each host. It's actually more granular security than we can get out of a traditional firewall."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"The solution is robust as it covers everything we want to do and is stable, so we're happy enough with it. We have had no problems so far. Everything is great."
"The most valuable features are ease of use and user interface."
"It provides a single pane of glass. You can do the switching, routing, load balancing, IPS, IDS, etc. Everything is under one umbrella. So, there is no vendor dependency over there."
"We like that everything is integrated."
"Overall, for me, it's a good solution and has been working well."
"Overall, I would say the solution has been quite stable."
"Provides protection for virtual machines."
"Some of the key features I find most valuable are the highly graphical user interface, virtualization of networks, and Microsoft application compatibility. It has all the functionality that we require."
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"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."
"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."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"We would to have a reverse proxy. This would add great value to the solution."
"They need to enhance their technical support."
"The solution could improve by having a more streamlined setup."
"The support needs improvement."
"The setup is complex and should be made easier."
"The tool's setup is complex and we need support to implement it."
"VMware NSX should be able to scale for different customers, even the big ones. Its scalability needs improvement. Stability for it should also be improved."
"Lacks integration with other solutions."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while VMware NSX is ranked 1st in Cloud and Data Center Security with 93 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while VMware NSX 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 VMware NSX writes "Allows for seamless micro-segmentation and the support is exceptional". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas VMware NSX is most compared with Nutanix Flow Network Security, Illumio, Cisco ACI, Cisco Secure Workload and Cisco DNA Center. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. VMware NSX report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors and best Microsegmentation Software 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.