We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about VMware, Cisco, Akamai and others in Cloud and Data Center Security."The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"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."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"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 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."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"It is a stable solution."
"DHCP is a basic service, and they've been doing it for years, so it's mature and stable."
"The most valuable features of Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection are the services, DHCP, and debugging. Additionally, we can use APIs and ansible scripts."
"The solution's user interface is very smooth compared to other products."
"Centralized management of DNS, DHCP, and IPAM helped us a lot in simplifying and automating the management of network and services."
"I like that Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is one hundred percent good, performance-wise."
"Infoblox offers granularity and advanced DNS protection to mitigate DNS attacks. It's a very secure solution."
"The security of the solution is perfect. It's very good at protecting us from attacks."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"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 maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we don't require to write custom scripts and APIs. The tool also has limitations on rules where it allows only sixty thousand rules. Our clients have also commented that there are too many manual clicks and effort to do changes. I think that the incorporation of automation can help our clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"I think only the technical documentation and administration of box could be a little bit improved."
"The solution is expensive."
"Infoblox lacks an extensive product portfolio."
"The service monitoring information could be simplified of this appliance and the information displayed on the dashboards could be improved. I have not found one dashboard to be perfect. For example, in Splunk, I can create a dashboard in Grafana. However, in Grafana, it takes a very long time to create them. There should be another API to do it better."
"The price could be reduced to improve the solution."
"There needs to be more capabilities in order to configure the console itself instead of the user interface dashboard. Configuring the DNS or DHCP through the console instead of the GUI dashboard would be better."
"They are not supporting high query logging. They have a very limited size for the syslog, so they are usually asking for external storage, external network, and integration in order to keep the syslog. If you are considering the high volume traffic of the carrier-grade, then the syslog will hold for around five to 10 minutes. This is not enough time and it is being rotated. This is the main issue and the main limitation that we face with them that they need to work on."
"Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection could be more user-friendly because you need knowledge if you want to use it. To handle the solution, you need to be a subject matter expert, so this is one area for improvement."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is ranked 2nd in Domain Name System (DNS) Security with 12 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is rated 8.2. 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 Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection writes "Stable, with good performance, and has no issues, support-wise". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, whereas Infoblox Advanced DNS Protection is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, F5 BIG-IP DNS, Zscaler Internet Access, Palo Alto Networks DNS Security and EfficientIP DNS Guardian.
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.
