We performed a comparison between Akamai App and API Protector and F5 Advanced WAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."They have a fantastic tool for analyzing and viewing your traffic."
"The features are powerful and better than F5."
"Adaptive stream delivery and WAF protection are valuable."
"Akamai Web Application Protector is a good solution that provides basic web application protection."
"The product has a good UI."
"The most valuable feature is the DDoS protection, which is the main reason we got it."
"I have contacted the support team of Akamai... I am happy with their responses and answers to my problems."
"I can attest to its benefits in terms of understanding and mitigating threats...The solution's technical support team seems to be pretty responsive."
"Customers find the load balancer feature as the most valuable."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the overall capabilities, there is not a comparable solution on the market."
"The anti-bot protection is the solution's most valuable feature. Safe-guard or credential staffing are also useful features."
"In terms of F5 Advanced WAF's most valuable features, I would definitely say its stability. F5 is one the most stable products. Either as the load balancer or the web application firewall, it is very stable."
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"It is also quite intuitive and user-friendly. They have several webinars that are actually like labs. You can use these webinars to learn about how to use all features of the product."
"The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features."
"F5 Advanced WAF is a stable solution, we are satisfied. It is more stable than ForiWeb."
"It would be better if there weren't any issues with latency. We had latency issues, but I think they are all solved now."
"The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved."
"They are already very flexible, but room for improvement is there. Reports generation could be better and should be improved."
"If we talk about application layer attacks, including WAF, CloudFlare is leading. Akamai can focus a bit more on the application layer attacks and how to protect them."
"Akamai needs to focus on quickly responding to risks, even those that may potentially be of zero threat..Maybe some of the documentation is a little confusing. They have a lot of different places where you can go to get information, and some of the information is quite out of date."
"I do not see any area for improvement. Akamai is already maintaining its own databases for the security concerns, vulnerabilities, and attacks that are there. If anything, they should have a solution in the infrastructure security area as well. They should not be only in cloud cybersecurity; they should also be in infrastructure security."
"A lot of piracy happens in India and other countries. If there is a product for protection from piracy, it would be great. For example, there are multiple hackers that hack your event, and there are some channels that pirate and publish the event on some other website. We protect our streaming through DRM and different technologies. We are also protecting the website, but hacking is still happening. If they can work on protecting from piracy, it would be great."
"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."
"It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve on its funding for WAF features. There is a need to be more advanced WAF features."
"Most customers encounter stability issues with the product's Big-IP logs."
"Scalability could be improved."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP."
"The administrator's user interface and some of the settings can sometimes be very complicated to understand."
Akamai App and API Protector is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 27 reviews while F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 53 reviews. Akamai App and API Protector is rated 8.4, while F5 Advanced WAF 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 F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". Akamai App and API Protector is most compared with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Prolexic and AWS Shield, whereas F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our Akamai App and API Protector vs. F5 Advanced WAF 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.