Akamai Kona Site Defender Reviews

I provide a service. We manage the Akamai service for our customers. Our customers are predominantly government agencies and medium-sized companies, and banks.

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.

They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved.

I have been using Akamai Kona Site Defender for two to three years.

Akamai Kona Site Defender is quite stable.

Akamai Kona Site Defender is scalable. They offer the most scalability in the marketplace, and there's no problem with scalability.

The guys at technical support are very technical, and then they're quite flexible. They are quite helpful to our customers.

Because our customers are big companies, we would do all the initial setup. It's not complicated because we have standards, best practices, and policies. It's not complicated, and we make it simple for our customers.

The price they are offering is quite reasonable for premium customers, but it's very expensive if you're a small and medium-sized enterprises.

I prefer Akamai Kona Site Defender to other competing products. We are working with several vendors, and vendors need to be open and accept criticism. Akamai is one of the good ones that accepts criticism, and they are open about it.

I would advise potential customers to make sure that it's a medium or big company. It's not suitable for small companies.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Akamai Kona Site Defender above eight.

We use Akamai Kona Site Defender because we need CDN. We have mobile apps, and we host them internally. Sometimes, we also deploy an IPA file for iPad. I think all the users from our distributor are going to download directly from our server. We use Akamai to distribute all the IPA files to our network provider without any significant latency for our distributor.

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.

It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now.

Akamai Kona Site Defender has been stable so far.

Because our third-party partner has a good relationship with Akamai, I think they can call the Akamai to join the incident call when an incident is happening. I think they're quite good and responsive for that. There is also a lot of documentation online regarding troubleshooting.

The initial setup is quite easy because we mainly outsource it to another company.

We just ask the third-party provider to implement the solution or engage Akamai and make some changes.

There is no license at all for Akamai. They are going to charge us only for the usage.

I would recommend this solution to potential users. I think if the FIC has a CDN, it's easier in terms of onboarding. In terms of the commercial part and charging, I think Akamai is more efficient. I think it's important to have a CDN feature inside.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Akamai Kona Site Defender a nine.

We use Akamai Kona for our cloud services.

The features are powerful and better than F5. I would rate the features a nine out of ten.

Support and the pricing need to improve. I would rate this area a six out of ten.

I started using Akamai Kona in 2017. We stopped in 2020 to switch to F5.

Technical support is very slow to respond.

Previously, we were not using any other solution.

Akamai is very expensive. It is more expensive than F5.

I would rate Akami Kona Site Defender a seven out of ten.