Compare AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender

Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews while AWS WAF is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.0, while AWS WAF is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona Site Defender writes "Enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Makes sure files are protected, but the solution should be more proactive in detecting threats". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with Shape Security, AWS WAF and Akamai Prolexic Routed, whereas AWS WAF is most compared with Imperva Incapsula, Akamai Kona Site Defender and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. See our AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
AWS WAF Logo
4,299 views|3,479 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
405,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it.It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure.It is scalable for DDoS.

Read more »

The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements.The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match.The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less.The customized billing is the most valuable feature.It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed.It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need.

Read more »

Cons
The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved.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.

Read more »

It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security.I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps.For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad botsThe solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler.We need more support as we go global.The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
There are different scale options available for WAF.There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.It's an annual subscription.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
405,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
7,851
Comparisons
5,812
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
410
Avg. Rating
8.0
Views
4,299
Comparisons
3,479
Reviews
9
Average Words per Review
381
Avg. Rating
7.7
Top Comparisons
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Also Known As
Kona Site Defender, KonaAWS Web Application Firewall
Learn
Akamai
Amazon
Video Not Available
Overview
Akamai's Kona Site Defender extends security beyond the data center while maintaining site performance and availability in the face of fast-changing threats. It leverages the power of the Akamai Intelligent Platform to detect, identify and mitigate Denial-of-Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks before they ever reach the origin.

AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

Offer
Learn more about Akamai Kona Site Defender
Learn more about AWS WAF
Sample Customers
AvidMobile, itBiteVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company38%
Comms Service Provider12%
Media Company8%
Financial Services Firm8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company38%
Media Company15%
Comms Service Provider12%
Retailer7%
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona Site Defender and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
405,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.