Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs AttackIQ comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Akamai Logo
313 views|173 comparisons
86% willing to recommend
AttackIQ Logo
1,973 views|1,309 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and AttackIQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Pentera, Cymulate, Picus Security and others in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS).
To learn more, read our detailed Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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.""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.""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 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.""I found the solution to be stable.""The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature.""The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."

More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pros →

"Overall, I've had a good experience with the product. It's worked well for me."

More AttackIQ Pros →

Cons
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering.""Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow.""In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session.""Customers would want to see the cost improved.""They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware.""It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud.""Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked.""The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."

More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Cons →

"The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time."

More AttackIQ Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "GuardiCore has made some new changes to the license now. We've seen monthly and annual licenses based on a subscription. We have a few clients that pay anywhere from $25,000 a year."
  • "Compared to the pricing we were seeing from both Illumio and Edgewise, Guardicore was very competitive."
  • "Guardicore Centra provides better value for money than NSX, was the other solution that we looked at, which was too expensive for what it does."
  • "This is not a cheap solution but you have to consider the bigger picture, which is what it is giving you."
  • "The customer would complain about the cost."
  • "The solution is reasonably priced and I would rate it a six out of ten. The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
  • "The price is the same as other products in the market. There's no price argument to choose one or the other product, it will cost the customer approximately the same."
  • "Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is expensive."
  • More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions are best for your needs.
    768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems.
    Top Answer:The pricing is too high. Based on market standards, I'd recommend lowering the price. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, with ten being affordable. The DQE feature increases the license cost… more »
    Top Answer:Customers would want to see the cost improved.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    Views
    313
    Comparisons
    173
    Reviews
    5
    Average Words per Review
    442
    Rating
    7.5
    Views
    1,973
    Comparisons
    1,309
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Guardicore Centra, GuardiCore
    Learn More
    Akamai
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is a software-based microsegmentation solution that provides the simplest, fastest, and most intuitive way to enforce Zero Trust principles. It enables you to prevent malicious lateral movement in your network through precise segmentation policies, visuals of activity within your IT environment, and network security alerts. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation works across your data centers, multicloud environments, and endpoints. It is faster to deploy than infrastructure segmentation approaches and provides you with unparalleled visibility and control of your network.

    The AttackIQ platform enables continuous validation that your security controls, processes and people are working as intended and delivering ROI. It seamlessly integrates into any existing network, delivering immediate visibility into your security program so you can uncover gaps in coverage, identify misconfigurations, and quickly prioritize remediation efforts.

    Sample Customers
    Santander, Frontier Airlines, OpenLink, Intermountain Healthcare, Cellcom, BancoBASE
    Information Not Available
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    University20%
    Retailer10%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Educational Organization10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company6%
    Insurance Company5%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider8%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business29%
    Midsize Enterprise18%
    Large Enterprise53%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise61%
    Buyer's Guide
    Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Pentera, Cymulate, Picus Security and others in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS). Updated: April 2024.
    768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 4th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 17 reviews while AttackIQ is ranked 7th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS). Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while AttackIQ is rated 7.0. 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 AttackIQ writes "Overall, a good user experience and works well but is hard to set up". 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 AttackIQ is most compared with Pentera, Picus Security, SafeBreach, Cymulate and Tenable One Exposure Management Platform.

    See our list of best Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) vendors.

    We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) 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.