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)."Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"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."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"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."
"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."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"Overall, I've had a good experience with the product. It's worked well for me."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"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."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"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."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"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."
"The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
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 and Cymulate.
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.