We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and AWS 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."It is scalable for DDoS."
"We are getting security for each and every API."
"It gives us a report of traffic. It gives us a report of the day-to-day URL traffic, and it also gives an individual report. If we reach out to Akamai, they give us the IPs as well."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"The product is user-friendly."
"It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure."
"Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,"
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"AWS WAF is a stable solution. The performance of the solution is very good."
"One common use case is using detection protection for enhancing security models in AWS. Another use case is implementing log analysis and response recovery procedures for email services."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"We are experimenting with EdgeWorkers to write our own code at the Edge level. It could grow to be much better."
"If we talk about application layer attacks, including WAF, CloudFlare is leading. Akamai can focus a bit more on the application layer attacks and how to protect them."
"In terms of precedence of Akamai rules, the last one is implemented. That is the one that is operational. If two rules contradict, the last one is implemented. We had a clash, but it was really tough to find that out. I would like to have a rulebook because, in their architecture documentation, it is not mentioned anywhere that if two rules clash, the last one works, and if it does not work, then what to do. This is something we were debating today with their tech support. With AWS, we get documents for the issues so that they do not occur in the future. Akamai's support and knowledge base needs to be improved."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"The custom rules must be improved."
"It would be nice if Akamai Web Application Protector's price is lowered and made cheaper."
"The WAF features definitely have a lot of room for improvement. A lot of the WAF is really basic. For some products or some of our solutions, we need to run a second layer of more advanced WAF. If it had better layer seven protection then we would not need a second WAF."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"I would like to see the addition of more advanced rate-limiting features in the next release. It would be beneficial to extend rate limiting beyond just web servers to the main node level."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"The setup is complicated."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"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."
"I would like to see it more tightly integrated with other AWS services."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while AWS WAF is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai App and API Protector writes "Easy to learn and gives us a report of traffic". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Prolexic, AWS Shield and Arbor DDoS, whereas AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare. See our AWS WAF vs. Akamai App and API Protector 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.