We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and AWS WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Everything will be handled by Akamai's system before it reaches our infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is the custom rules feature. This is because many of our customers require a lot of custom rules. Because it's a very customized project for our customers, I think they have the best of everything already."
"It gives us a report of traffic. It gives us a report of the day-to-day URL traffic, and it also gives an individual report. If we reach out to Akamai, they give us the IPs as well."
"The solution easily identifies, delays, or allows business traffic."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"The product has a good user interface."
"The product has a good UI."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"The customizable features are good."
"We preferred the product based on its cost. AWS WAF is an out-of-the-box solution and integrates with the AWS services that we use. It's natively integrated with AWS."
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"We are experimenting with EdgeWorkers to write our own code at the Edge level. It could grow to be much better."
"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."
"Customer support has room for improvement."
"It would be nice if Akamai Web Application Protector's price is lowered and made cheaper."
"The custom rules must be improved."
"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."
"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."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"AWS WAF should provide better protection to its users, and the security features need to improve."
"I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy."
"The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product."
"The cost management has room for improvement."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"The price could be improved."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while AWS WAF is rated 8.0. 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 AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Prolexic, AWS Shield and Arbor DDoS, whereas AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare. See our AWS WAF vs. Akamai App and API Protector report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
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.