We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Pentera based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I found the solution to be stable."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"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."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Pentera is that you can do continuous vulnerability assessment, which is automated."
"What I like the most about Pentera is its solution-oriented approach."
"The vulnerability scanner, exploit achievements, and remediation actions are all great."
"Maybe there are some remediation steps on the website, we can mask sensitive information on the website better."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"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 would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"The price could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in virtualization compatibility."
"The vulnerability scanner, exploit achievements, and remediation actions are all great."
"Maybe scalability. I know that the Pentera right now is high level in order to scan big deals over 500 IPs and not less, and not less. That can be more granular. This will be useful."
"Pentera's general dashboards could be improved and made more specific in terms of vulnerabilities that I'm discovering."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 4th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 17 reviews while Pentera is ranked 1st in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 5 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Pentera is rated 8.2. 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 Pentera writes "A stable solution that can be used to do continuous and automated vulnerability assessments". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, whereas Pentera is most compared with Cymulate, Tenable Nessus, Picus Security, Horizon3.ai and Qualys VMDR. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Pentera report.
See our list of best Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) vendors.
We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) 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.
