Akamai App and API Protector vs Sucuri comparison

"I have contacted the support team of Akamai... I am happy with their responses and answers to my problems."

"The CDN and the WAF features are the best."

"The product is user-friendly."

"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."

"It is scalable for DDoS."

"I like that the charges are all based on usage and labor costs. For the time that we spend onboarding almost 252020 FQDN, Akamai charges us only for the traffic usage, but it's only charging us for the labor costs for onboarding."

"The features are powerful and better than F5."

"The product has a good UI."

"I use it as a WAF, which is basically a web firewall to monitor and block traffic to our web server."

"Domain name scanning since it allows us to scan all our domain names and determine whether it has malware or if is reported as phishing."

"It significantly eases the workload and streamlines the initial setup required to protect a website."

"The initial setup was straightforward. Straight forward because the plugin can simply be installed and then it does its job. It's not complex, there is no learning curve. The online scan is simple, you put in the website address and the scan gives us a report on the browser itself. It's simple to use."

"The most valuable part is the analytics and visualization."

"The initial setup was very easy."

"There are some issues with pushing configurations across a network. It still takes about 20 minutes and that means to retract it's another 20 minutes."

"A lot of piracy happens in India and other countries. If there is a product for protection from piracy, it would be great. For example, there are multiple hackers that hack your event, and there are some channels that pirate and publish the event on some other website. We protect our streaming through DRM and different technologies. We are also protecting the website, but hacking is still happening. If they can work on protecting from piracy, it would be great."

"It would be nice if Akamai Web Application Protector's price is lowered and made cheaper."

"Could integrate more features for each security."

"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."

"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."

"The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved."

"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."

"It would greatly benefit customers if they implemented an online chat or messaging system for quicker assistance."

"Sucuri could provide help for specific security alerts in-line instead of requiring users to search for it in the help section."

"The main improvement I would like to see is support for .NET applications. If they could include this feature, I would include more sites in the protection."

"In terms of improvement, the cost factor is always there."

"Confident score: Currently it does not have one and there are cases that most websites flagged are false-positives."

"I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. The reason is that we have found sometimes customers or Google saying that there is something wrong with the website but Sucuri says that the site is clean so we do have to look at the site manually which means that the Sucuri scan does not pick up anything and everything."

"The solution is expensive."

"Akamai is very expensive."

"Its price is at the medium level. It is not very high. It is also not very low. It serves the purpose."

"There is no license at all for Akamai. They are going to charge us only for the usage."

"The product is expensive, but it is worth the money."

"Its price is slightly high. Every company has a justification for the high price. Overall, it feels worth the money based on how the service has been structured, but we do negotiate it."

"One reason not all people use Akamai is that it is a little bit more expensive than some other providers."

"The solution is not expensive."

"It stands out as a more cost-effective option compared to other cloud-based security services like Cloudflare or JetPass."

"Sucuri offers different plans, both the standard plan and an advanced plan. So there are different plans to choose from."

"The ROI has been very good. Because of the solution, I have a tax break. The site developers were not always experienced people. We used to pay more for cleaning up the site when it was infected. Now, we have peace of mind knowing that the solution will clean up the site and that we won't have to go through the unnecessary process of restoring it from a backup. The protection on the WAF and the measures for backups have also prevented our site from going down."

"I’d simply say it’s really worth it."