We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The features are powerful and better than F5."
"The solution can scale extremely well."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."
"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 CDN and the WAF features are the best."
"WAF is useful to track mitigation, inclusion, prevention, and the parametric firewall."
"The most valuable feature is that there is a link in the system that will help to analyze the security of an application when something abnormal is found."
"The most valuable feature is that I can establish different services from the firewall."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved."
"Could integrate more features for each security."
"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."
"Support and the pricing need to improve."
"The configuration needs to be more flexible because it is difficult to do things that are outside of the ordinary."
"Setting policies and parameters through the UI should be more automated because the process is manual, where we can only edit one rule at a time."
"It's challenging if you need to go for a high throughput."
"Akamai is very expensive."
"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."
"The licensing fees for this solution are pretty expensive for what it does, but there is no alternative."
"Our licensing costs are about $40,000 a year."
Earn 20 points
NGINX App Protect application security solution combines the efficacy of advanced F5 web application firewall (WAF) technology with the agility and performance of NGINX Plus. The solution runs natively on NGINX Plus and addresses some of the most difficult challenges facing modern DevOps environments:
NGINX App Protect offers:
Akamai Kona Site Defender is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 6 reviews while NGINX App Protect is ranked 13th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 3 reviews. Akamai Kona Site Defender is rated 8.2, while NGINX App Protect is rated 8.0. 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 NGINX App Protect writes "A stable system with good security and load balancing". Akamai Kona Site Defender is most compared with Akamai Prolexic Routed, AWS WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Cloudflare and F5 Shape Security, whereas NGINX App Protect is most compared with AWS WAF, F5 Advanced WAF, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Azure Front Door and Airlock. See our Akamai Kona Site Defender vs. NGINX App Protect 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.