We compared VMware NSX and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: After comparing VMware NSX and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, it is evident that VMware NSX offers comprehensive and superior virtualized network software with advanced features such as virtual switch control, micro-segmentation, and distributed firewall. Conversely, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is praised for its simplicity in setup, flexibility in creating network security zones, and strong customer support.
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"I have found the system to be very intuitive, functional, and they have great technology."
"The security offered by VMware NSX is the most valuable, plus it's a feature-rich product that's straightforward to install and configure."
"I have found VMware NSX to be easy to use."
"It has reduced the number of people on the network team along with the system engineer involved in the security process. So, it is valuable."
"The most valuable features are ease of use and user interface."
"The stability is great. That's one of the things that we can quantify and leverage through NSX, because it's less complex. We have the availability to manage multiple things at the same time. You can identify problems before they manifest."
"Some of the key features I find most valuable are the highly graphical user interface, virtualization of networks, and Microsoft application compatibility. It has all the functionality that we require."
"From a distributed firewall perspective, it's a solid solution."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"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 maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"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."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"They have some limitations in the firewall features as compared to the on-prem or dedicated hardware appliance. They can add more features, such as IPS and IDS, to the cloud firewall."
"We would like better integration with the standards on the market. For example, with OSPF, their integration in NSX is very low. It's not a full OSPF integration. It is too thin from a protocol perspective."
"The integration with other brands is not the best."
"We have been satisfied with the technical support. They were able to solve our problems. However, they could be faster."
"I would like to have automating reporting built into common service management platforms, such as JIRA, Serviceaide, and ServiceNow."
"I would like to see automation capabilities in the deployment process."
"We would to have a reverse proxy. This would add great value to the solution."
"VMware NSX only supports some platforms like KVM."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while VMware NSX is ranked 1st in Cloud and Data Center Security with 93 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while VMware NSX 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 VMware NSX writes "Allows for seamless micro-segmentation and the support is exceptional". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas VMware NSX is most compared with Nutanix Flow Network Security, Illumio, Cisco ACI, Cisco Secure Workload and Cisco DNA Center. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. VMware NSX report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors and best Microsegmentation Software 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.