We performed a comparison between Akamai Kona Site Defender and Azure Front Door 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 features are powerful and better than F5."
"The solution can scale extremely well."
"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."
"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 inspects the traffic at the network level before it comes into Azure. We can do SSL offloading, and it can detect abnormalities before the traffic comes into the application. It can be used globally and is easy to set up. It is also quite stable and scalable."
"The price is one of the most important aspects of the product. It's quite affordable."
"You can assign as many web application firewall policies as you want to the same instance of Front Door."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"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 pricing could be reduced a bit."
"There is room for improvement and they're working on it."
"We should be able to use Front Door defenders with multiple cloud vendors. Currently, they can be used only with the Azure cloud. Azure Front Door should also be able to do global load balancing and provide internal front door services. Microsoft should clearly define what Traffic Manager, Application Gateway, and Azure Front Door products do. These are similar products, and people get confused between these products."
"I'm responsible for the governance and cost control of Azure. I'm not a specialist in any products and therefore I couldn't really speak effectively to features that are lacking or missing."
Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 4 reviews while Azure Front Door is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.0, while Azure Front Door is rated 9.0. 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 Azure Front Door writes "Provides a rich toolset for security, directing traffic, and rewriting headers and URLs". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with AWS WAF, Akamai Prolexic Routed, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Akamai Web Application Protector, whereas Azure Front Door is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Amazon CloudFront, Cloudflare, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Azure Front Door 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.
