We compared Cisco ACI and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation based on our users' reviews in five categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: When comparing Cisco ACI and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco ACI offers a network-centric approach with strong integration capabilities and a focus on applications. It has a more complex setup process but becomes easier to configure and manage once deployed. However, it is expensive, has a non-user-friendly GUI, and faces security and segmentation issues. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, on the other hand, has a simple setup process, good flexibility, and strong customer support. However, there is limited information on pricing and licensing, and it may pose challenges for large organizations.
"I found the solution to be stable."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"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."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"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."
"Automation is its most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco ACI is that it is eay to manage. We can automate and it can be scripted. Virtual ACI is very good."
"Cisco ACI is scalable and easy to expand."
"The most valuable features are the ease of setup for redundancy, as well as centralized control."
"With ACI, if you need more capacity you can just buy more and plug them in without needing to do anything else. All of the sudden that infrastructure is there for me to use, configure, and add stuff to."
"It is easy to use because you have all the information coming from the same technology."
"The most valuable feature is the unified fabric."
"We had different networks and combined them with ACI so we could have the control of one controller-based network. Also, everything is combined now."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"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."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"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."
"I think that technical support tickets should be escalated sooner."
"More how-to videos and instructional information is required."
"I would like to see a smoother transition from existing systems."
"We deployed a lot of Fabrics to multiple sites, which was a bit complex."
"In the new version of 4.0, the management groups for updating the software is not the best way to do it. It was better in 3.2."
"I wish that if I had to open up an additional tab, I wouldn't have to log in every single time."
"I would like for ACI to manage all of the devices."
"Because this is new technology, which requires a different way of thinking, it can be hard to understand. Therefore, I would like more documentation or education."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Cisco ACI is ranked 2nd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 97 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Cisco ACI 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 Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Zero Networks Microsegmentation, whereas Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Nuage Networks, Juniper Contrail Networking and HPE SDN. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Cisco ACI report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security 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.