We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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."The solution easily identifies, delays, or allows business traffic."
"Traffic filtering and WAF are valuable."
"The solution can scale extremely well."
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."
"The most valuable feature is the custom rules feature. This is because many of our customers require a lot of custom rules. Because it's a very customized project for our customers, I think they have the best of everything already."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"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 solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The production is a valuable feature."
"I do not see any area for improvement. Akamai is already maintaining its own databases for the security concerns, vulnerabilities, and attacks that are there. If anything, they should have a solution in the infrastructure security area as well. They should not be only in cloud cybersecurity; they should also be in infrastructure security."
"The performance of the cloud monitoring tool is low."
"Akamai App and API Protector is very new to me, so I do not have any insights on improvement areas for the product. However, when we ask for some help, it can take some time. We understand that the job is done by professionals, but if that time can be reduced, it would be great."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"In terms of precedence of Akamai rules, the last one is implemented. That is the one that is operational. If two rules contradict, the last one is implemented. We had a clash, but it was really tough to find that out. I would like to have a rulebook because, in their architecture documentation, it is not mentioned anywhere that if two rules clash, the last one works, and if it does not work, then what to do. This is something we were debating today with their tech support. With AWS, we get documents for the issues so that they do not occur in the future. Akamai's support and knowledge base needs to be improved."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"There are some issues with pushing configurations across a network. It still takes about 20 minutes and that means to retract it's another 20 minutes."
"Could integrate more features for each security."
"It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 41 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. 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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF, Prolexic, AWS Shield and Arbor DDoS, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Citrix NetScaler, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our Akamai App and API Protector vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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.
