We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and F5 Shape Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), F5, Microsoft and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The features are powerful and better than F5."
"All the solution's features are very good."
"The dashboard is the most interesting feature of the Akamai portal where you can have a detailed analysis of all the attacks that are happening. You can drill down an issue and see exactly what is happening, who are the bad guys attacking your website, and how Akamai is protecting the website. That is the most valuable feature."
"I have contacted the support team of Akamai... I am happy with their responses and answers to my problems."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"The solution easily identifies, delays, or allows business traffic."
"Everything will be handled by Akamai's system before it reaches our infrastructure."
"The product has a good UI."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ease of configuration."
"F5 Shape Security's most valuable feature is performance."
"One thing I asked them is to integrate the API discovery product that they have and push that data into Akamai App and API Protector so that we do not have two types of reviews to identify the type of traffic. We already know the APIs that are frequently getting used, so analysis becomes easier. We can integrate both products and use them."
"Could integrate more features for each security."
"It would be nice if Akamai Web Application Protector's price is lowered and made cheaper."
"The performance of the cloud monitoring tool is low."
"Akamai needs to focus on quickly responding to risks, even those that may potentially be of zero threat..Maybe some of the documentation is a little confusing. They have a lot of different places where you can go to get information, and some of the information is quite out of date."
"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."
"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."
"We are experimenting with EdgeWorkers to write our own code at the Edge level. It could grow to be much better."
"The tool's price is high."
"I want the solution's custom exclusion rules to be more granular."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while F5 Shape Security is ranked 7th in Fraud Detection and Prevention with 2 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while F5 Shape Security is rated 8.6. 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 F5 Shape Security writes "Easy to configure and blocks bot attacks for web users". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF and Prolexic, whereas F5 Shape Security is most compared with Akamai Bot Manager, Cloudflare, HUMAN BotGuard for Applications, Imperva DDoS and F5 Silverline Managed Services.
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.