We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Compare Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
552,305 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 custom rules feature. This is because many of our customers require a lot of custom rules. Because it's a very customized project for our customers, I think they have the best of everything already.""I like that the charges are all based on usage and labor costs. For the time that we spend onboarding almost 252020 FQDN, Akamai charges us only for the traffic usage, but it's only charging us for the labor costs for onboarding.""The features are powerful and better than F5.""The CDN and the WAF features are the best.""The solution can scale extremely well.""The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Pros »

"The solution is easy to set up.""Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.""This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date.""The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects.""The pricing is quite good.""Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts.""WAF feature replicates the firewall.""Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pros »

Cons
"Support and the pricing need to improve.""The pricing could be reduced a bit.""It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now.""They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved.""Could integrate more features for each security.""The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Cons »

"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive.""The monitoring on the solution could be better.""It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me.""Scalability can be an issue.""Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM.""For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved.""One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS.""The security of the product could be adjusted."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"There is no license at all for Akamai. They are going to charge us only for the usage.""The price they are offering is quite reasonable for premium customers, but it's very expensive if you're a small and medium-sized enterprises.""Akamai is very expensive."

More Akamai Kona Site Defender Pricing and Cost Advice »

"Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year.""It is not expensive.""Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS."

More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
552,305 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The solution can scale extremely well.
Top Answer: The product really isn't very user-friendly. They could improve it so that it's easier for their customers to navigate and use. From a management perspective, it's difficult. Managing these rules with… more »
Top Answer: We primarily use the solution as an application firewall.
Top Answer: We found Azure Front Door to be easily scaled and very stable. The implementation is very fast and Microsoft provides excellent support. Azure Front Door can quickly detect abnormalities before the… more »
Top Answer: Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.
Top Answer: Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year.
Ranking
Views
8,799
Comparisons
6,974
Reviews
5
Average Words per Review
392
Rating
8.2
Views
22,730
Comparisons
20,448
Reviews
11
Average Words per Review
438
Rating
7.1
Comparisons
Also Known As
Kona Site Defender, Kona
Azure Application Gateway, MS Azure Application Gateway
Learn More
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.

Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.

To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.

Offer
Learn more about Akamai Kona Site Defender
Learn more about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
Sample Customers
AvidMobile, itBit
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company29%
Financial Services Firm15%
Comms Service Provider14%
Retailer5%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider33%
Financial Services Firm11%
Healthcare Company11%
Government11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company30%
Comms Service Provider19%
Energy/Utilities Company5%
Government5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business30%
Large Enterprise70%
REVIEWERS
Small Business31%
Midsize Enterprise8%
Large Enterprise62%
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
552,305 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 11 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona Site Defender writes "Great technical support, scales extremely well, and is very stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with Akamai Prolexic Routed, AWS WAF, Cloudflare, F5 Shape Security and Imperva Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF and NGINX App Protect. See our Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.

See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.

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.