We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and AWS WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure."
"I have contacted the support team of Akamai... I am happy with their responses and answers to my problems."
"I like that the charges are all based on usage and labor costs. For the time that we spend onboarding almost 252020 FQDN, Akamai charges us only for the traffic usage, but it's only charging us for the labor costs for onboarding."
"The features are powerful and better than F5."
"The dashboard is the most interesting feature of the Akamai portal where you can have a detailed analysis of all the attacks that are happening. You can drill down an issue and see exactly what is happening, who are the bad guys attacking your website, and how Akamai is protecting the website. That is the most valuable feature."
"I can attest to its benefits in terms of understanding and mitigating threats...The solution's technical support team seems to be pretty responsive."
"It is scalable for DDoS."
"AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules."
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The solution is stable."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"This is not a product that you need to install. You just use it."
"One common use case is using detection protection for enhancing security models in AWS. Another use case is implementing log analysis and response recovery procedures for email services."
"One area where Akamai can improve is the captcha part. Cloudflare provides a captcha if there are a certain number of threats. For example, I can assign that if there are 10 requests within a second from a single IP, it should send a captcha to the user. The user should fill in the captcha, and only after that, the user should be able to access our website. This captcha feature should be built into Bot Manager. I love this captcha feature of Cloudflare."
"If we talk about application layer attacks, including WAF, CloudFlare is leading. Akamai can focus a bit more on the application layer attacks and how to protect them."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"Customer support has room for improvement."
"The WAF features definitely have a lot of room for improvement. A lot of the WAF is really basic. For some products or some of our solutions, we need to run a second layer of more advanced WAF. If it had better layer seven protection then we would not need a second WAF."
"The product should provide a secure NTP."
"It's fine for a simple tool, but as I recall, if you encounter a lot of bots, scrapers, and other things, you'll need this tool bot and this other thing they offer called Bot Manager."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"The pricing model is complicated."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"The solution can improve its price."
"While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while AWS WAF is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai App and API Protector writes "Easy to learn and gives us a report of traffic". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Prolexic, AWS Shield and Arbor DDoS, whereas AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare. See our AWS WAF vs. Akamai App and API Protector report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.