We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and Arbor DDoS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The features are powerful and better than F5."
"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."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"The solution easily identifies, delays, or allows business traffic."
"The product has a good user interface."
"They have a fantastic tool for analyzing and viewing your traffic."
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."
"We are getting security for each and every API."
"Its scalability is big. It is for large deployments of big organizations and service providers."
"Valuable features include simple and centralized management of user access and capabilities, as well as Web 2.0 interactive attack alerting, traffic visualization, and mitigation service control."
"Arbor DDoS's best feature is that we can put the certificates in, and it will look at layer seven and the encrypted traffic and do the required signaling."
"The solution provides good protection against volumetric DDoS attacks."
"There were huge attacks in October, around 62 attacks at 30 gigabits per second, at one of our banks. We used Arbor DDoS to mitigate these attacks, and it performed great."
"The most valuable features include the traffic categorization and control of the traffic. The filtering of the traffic is very precise. When you want to stop some traffic, you precisely stop that traffic."
"The stateless device format means that the box is very strong for preventing DDoS attacks."
"Arbor DDoS offers security features that automatically detect and prevent DDoS attacks."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit."
"The performance of the cloud monitoring tool is low."
"One thing I asked them is to integrate the API discovery product that they have and push that data into Akamai App and API Protector so that we do not have two types of reviews to identify the type of traffic. We already know the APIs that are frequently getting used, so analysis becomes easier. We can integrate both products and use them."
"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."
"Could integrate more features for each security."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"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 product should provide a secure NTP."
"The following areas need improvement: opening and tracking support tickets, online support resources, software upgrades/updates and replacement media, and event management guidelines."
"On the main page there are alerts that we are unable to clear, even though the issue has been resolved."
"I would also like more visibility into their bad actor feeds, their fingerprint feeds. We try to be good stewards of the internet, so if there are attacks, or bad actors within our networks, if there were an easier way for us to find them, we could stop them from doing their malicious activity, and at the same time save money."
"The product could have end-to-end platform visibility."
"We need a SaaS model for the solution."
"I think the diversity of protection is extremely limited. It must be expanded in future upgrades and versions."
"An improvement would be to provide information on how pricing is done on different customer levels."
"The regional support here in African could improve, such as marketing and account managers."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 3rd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 27 reviews while Arbor DDoS is ranked 2nd in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection with 46 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while Arbor DDoS is rated 8.6. 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 Arbor DDoS writes "A critical solution for security, as it includes features that can automatically detect and prevent DDoS attacks". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Prolexic and Cloudflare, whereas Arbor DDoS is most compared with Radware DefensePro, Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, Corero and Prolexic. See our Akamai App and API Protector vs. Arbor DDoS report.
See our list of best Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection vendors.
We monitor all Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) Protection 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.
