We compared Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Based on the reviews, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is praised for its simple setup and scalability, particularly for legacy operating systems. However, it may not be suitable for large organizations and lacks accurate support for Kubernetes and service mesh. In contrast, Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation has a relatively easy setup process and offers strong monitoring capabilities. It allows for effortless blocking and micro-segmenting, but requires improvements in operating system support and customer service. Additionally, Illumio is considered expensive as it requires a subscription.
"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 label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"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."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The Explorer allows you to know the traffic between source and destination."
"The most valuable feature of Illumio Adaptive Security Platform is monitoring. When I have no requirement from the other application, I can use the web block traffic to build."
"The flexibility of the solution is its most valuable feature."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It has helped us to understand internal network visibility and firewall policy implementation. We use the product to simplify firewall policy implementation."
"The solution helps to maintain logs and monitor activities. It also helps us with access management. The tool helps us to secure organizational data that include files."
"The features that I have found most useful is the ability to centralize all the rules and then distribute them across various locations. However, I've encountered challenges related to tagging policies, which can be complex to devise. It's a matter that requires careful consideration and stakeholder involvement before implementing such policies."
"The product provides visibility into how the applications communicate and how the network protocols are being used."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"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."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"It requires a low-level re-architecting of the product."
"The solution is very basic and doesn't do anything other than the orchestration of layer four endpoint firewall rules."
"The product’s agents don't work very well in OT environments."
"I would like to see better data security in the product."
"Illumio Adaptive Security Platform could improve by supporting more operating systems. For example, Cisco and Apache appliances."
"Some of the features that can be improved is offer additional guidance on creating an effective and risk-free tagging policy would be highly beneficial."
"The customer service is lagging a bit. It could be better."
"The interaction we've had with the support team hasn't been ideal. Technical support should be improved."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Illumio is ranked 4th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 8 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Illumio is rated 8.0. 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 Illumio writes "Pprevents attackers or threats from spreading or moving laterally". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas Illumio is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Zscaler Internet Access, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Zero Networks Microsegmentation. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Illumio report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Microsegmentation Software vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.