Compare AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona

Akamai Kona is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews while AWS WAF is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 7 reviews. Akamai Kona is rated 7.6, while AWS WAF is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Akamai Kona 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 is most compared with Shape Security, AWS WAF and Prolexic, whereas AWS WAF is most compared with Akamai Kona, Imperva Incapsula and F5 BIG-IP. See our AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Akamai Kona Logo
7,520 views|5,495 comparisons
AWS WAF Logo
3,116 views|2,483 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,399 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
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 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.It's simple, easy to use.The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications.The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system.

Read more »

Cons
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 »

The 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.In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications.They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats.

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.
382,399 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
7,520
Comparisons
5,495
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
413
Avg. Rating
7.5
Views
3,116
Comparisons
2,483
Reviews
7
Average Words per Review
372
Avg. Rating
7.9
Top Comparisons
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Also Known As
AWS 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
Learn more about AWS WAF
Sample Customers
AvidMobile, itBiteVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company27%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm12%
Media Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company36%
Comms Service Provider16%
Media Company15%
Retailer10%
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Akamai Kona and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,399 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.
Sign Up with Email