We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why

AWS WAF vs Akamai Kona Site Defender comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
AWS WAF Logo
14,529 views|12,431 comparisons
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender and other solutions. Updated: January 2022.
564,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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 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.""The solution can scale extremely well.""The CDN and the WAF features are the best.""The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it.""The features are powerful and better than F5."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Pros →

"As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good.""The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most.""AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules.""The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.""Their technical support has been quite good.""The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements.""Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources.""The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL."

More AWS WAF Pros →

Cons
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now.""Could integrate more features for each security.""They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved.""Support and the pricing need to improve.""The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved.""The pricing could be reduced a bit."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Cons →

"The setup is complicated.""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.""We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS.""The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure.""We haven't faced any problems with the solution.""When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them.""I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps.""The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."

More AWS WAF Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Akamai is very expensive."
  • "There is no license at all for Akamai. They are going to charge us only for the usage."
  • "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."
  • More Akamai Kona Site Defender Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
  • "It has a variable pricing scheme."
  • "We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
  • "It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
  • "The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
  • "It's cheap."
  • "AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
  • "You need an additional AWS subscription for this product if you are buying a managed tool."
  • More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
    564,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: 
    The product really isn't very user-friendly. They could improve it so that it's easier for their customers to navigate and use. From a management perspective, it's difficult. Managing these rules with… more »
    Top Answer: 
    We primarily use the solution as an application firewall.
    Top Answer: 
    Hi Varun, I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud… more »
    Top Answer: 
    Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for… more »
    Top Answer: 
    Their technical support has been quite good.
    Ranking
    Views
    8,710
    Comparisons
    6,874
    Reviews
    5
    Average Words per Review
    392
    Rating
    8.2
    Views
    14,529
    Comparisons
    12,431
    Reviews
    9
    Average Words per Review
    587
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Kona Site Defender, Kona
    AWS Web Application Firewall
    Learn More
    Overview
    Akamai's Kona Site Defender extends security beyond the data center while maintaining site performance and availability in the face of fast-changing threats. It leverages the power of the Akamai Intelligent Platform to detect, identify and mitigate Denial-of-Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks before they ever reach the origin.

    AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

    Offer
    Learn more about Akamai Kona Site Defender
    Learn more about AWS WAF
    Sample Customers
    AvidMobile, itBit
    eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company28%
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Comms Service Provider14%
    Media Company5%
    REVIEWERS
    Energy/Utilities Company22%
    Media Company22%
    Transportation Company11%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company26%
    Comms Service Provider21%
    Media Company12%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Large Enterprise70%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise29%
    Large Enterprise48%
    Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender and other solutions. Updated: January 2022.
    564,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews while AWS WAF is ranked 5th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 12 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.2, while AWS WAF is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona Site Defender writes "Great technical support, scales extremely well, and is very stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Use this product to make it possible to deploy web applications securely". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with Akamai Prolexic Routed, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Cloudflare, F5 Shape Security and Imperva Web Application Firewall, whereas AWS WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Cloudflare. See our AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender 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.