We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."Everything will be handled by Akamai's system before it reaches our infrastructure."
"The support that we got from their technical team has been fantastic. I have never experienced this level of support from other CDN providers."
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"The product is user-friendly."
"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."
"Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"We are getting security for each and every API."
"The three most valuable features that I noticed are the geo-localization of the user, the IP reputation, and the compartmental analysis."
"The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved."
"The solution could offer even more integrations."
"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."
"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."
"Akamai App and API Protector is very new to me, so I do not have any insights on improvement areas for the product. However, when we ask for some help, it can take some time. We understand that the job is done by professionals, but if that time can be reduced, it would be great."
"It's fine for a simple tool, but as I recall, if you encounter a lot of bots, scrapers, and other things, you'll need this tool bot and this other thing they offer called Bot Manager."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"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 area that should be improved is licensing."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is ranked 31st in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is rated 9.0. 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 R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) writes "Geo-localization and IP reputation help to keep our clients secure and more available". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Prolexic and AWS Shield, whereas R&S Web Application Firewall (DenyAll) is most compared with AWS WAF and Fortinet FortiWeb.
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.
