We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Fortinet FortiWeb based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about VMware, Akamai, Cisco and others in Cloud and Data Center Security."The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"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."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"FortiWeb is easy to operate with a reasonably high level of protection. FortiWeb provides multiple deployment options with a physical or virtual (FortiWeb-VM) appliance, and acts either as a reverse/transparent proxy or out-of-band. It is also available on AWS and Azure."
"Technical support is very good."
"If I need something from tech support, I can get it answered within the hour."
"The most valuable feature in this solution is the ability to disseminate between the user entering some wrong value to the field, and a suspicious actor trying to exploit some known vulnerability."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Fail-Open."
"Some of the threat detection analytics and the filtering capabilities they give us for filtering a certain type of information that we don't want coming into the site are its valuable features. The analytics are pretty good in terms of being able to see what threats have been detected and mitigated, where they're coming from, and things like that."
"It's easy to use and allows us to integrate solutions together."
"Both the internal firewall management and the cloud can be managed by a single console."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"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."
"Lacks functionalities that are available in other solutions."
"FortiGate could be improved on the security end because we've had some incidents with the customer. Otherwise, there is no problem."
"It would also be helpful if they could introduce easier reporting. It's good to have those reports that go to C-level management, and Fortinet does provide some graphs, but if they went into some more detail, that would be great."
"The automation piece can be improved. Although they say it can be automated very well, there is still manual work. Its usability should be improved in terms of automation because we want to build an infrastructure with code, but you can't do that easily with this solution. If they can give us APIs in the firewalls that we can tap into, it would be perfect."
"The solution could improve by providing more integration with solutions other than the Fortinet family."
"A user interface or dashboard for troubleshooting is needed."
"The documentation for the machine learning could be better."
"Another area for improvement is logging. When troubleshooting, the logs sometimes take a while to update. We've had people report that some things aren't logged if they're successful. It's a bit hit-and-miss. For example, sometimes people access one of our services, and it's successful, but we don't see that in the logs."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 2nd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiWeb 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 Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall.
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.
