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.
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"Cisco ACI's best features include its network-centric approach and micro-segmentation."
"Their technical support is very good. We had a problem and Cisco gave us the best engineer to resolve the issue."
"Automation is its most valuable feature."
"With Cisco ACI, I can deploy things with a script, then run it in five minutes."
"I have found the SDN features to be the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the throughput that it offers."
"This product improved the way our company functions by enabling us to establish our goal of moving to a zero-trust model. That's how Cisco ACI helps us the most."
"The ability to integrate with other systems is the most valuable feature."
"Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we don't require to write custom scripts and APIs. The tool also has limitations on rules where it allows only sixty thousand rules. Our clients have also commented that there are too many manual clicks and effort to do changes. I think that the incorporation of automation can help our clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"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."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"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."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"It would be great if ACI would include the next generation firewall feature."
"We would like to have faster services and problem monitoring for our customers."
"Our problems with Cisco ACI are mainly related to the contracts and how to manage them easily in the platform. Cisco also needs to improve the log files and the complexity of the graphical interface."
"It needs more features for integrating with third-party vendors."
"The CLI needs to be improved."
"The first setup was difficult because it is a very different discipline than other traditional network deployments. The terminology is very different, so the first time can be difficult."
"Customer support for ACI needs improvement. Many customers prefer HPE because their internal support is different and easier to integrate with existing networks. This lack of awareness of ACI's capabilities makes customers stick to traditional networking."
"ACI's blade servers could be more flexible, and its storage interface is a little too complex because they use some third-party storage solution."
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 96 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.
