We performed a comparison between Akamai Kona Site Defender and F5 Advanced WAF 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 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."
"The features are powerful and better than F5."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its grand unity of the implementation, where you have the freedom to configure based on how it affects your use case or your organization. With the default setting of implicit deny, you can gradually start defining and deploying the tool to align with your environment, whether it is outdated, recent, or futuristic. This allows you to customize the solution to protect you from threat actors. You have the ability to define what the advanced threat act should do - whether it should alert, deny, or both - and it will deliver based on your configuration. Unlike other online solutions, F5 Advanced WAF provides flexibility to deliver to your unique environment the way you want."
"Identification, ease of use, and ease of modifying it to most of our needs are valuable."
"Good technology for mitigating different application attacks, e.g. DDoS, DNS, and layer seven attacks."
"My favorite feature of F5 is the ability to play around with the ciphers. I also like the ability to have an immediate display of the support IDs when a real blockage occurs. The protection offered is great."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the WAF protection, Data Safe, and the seven-layer DDoS."
"The most valuable features of the F5 Advanced WAF are the enhanced ASM and the performance. Additionally, the usability and effectiveness are very good."
"It's scalable and very easy to manage."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the overall capabilities, there is not a comparable solution on the market."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"F5 Advanced needs to improve its bot protection. The solution needs to have machine learning to learn the behavior of the customer to recognize the human versus the bot. This is a difficult feature to explain to our customers. I would like documentation about the bot feature to make it easier for the customer to understand."
"The reporting portion of F5 Advance WAF is not great. They need to work out something better, as it is very basic. You only see the top IPs, I think there is more they can offer."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP."
"The overall price of F5 Advanced WAF could improve."
"I would like to see the API Protection improved."
Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 12th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 4 reviews while F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 32 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.0, while F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.4. 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 F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with AWS WAF, Akamai Prolexic Routed, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Akamai Web Application Protector and Imperva DDoS, whereas F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF and NGINX App Protect. See our Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. F5 Advanced WAF 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.
