We compared VMware NSX and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: After comparing VMware NSX and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, it is evident that VMware NSX offers comprehensive and superior virtualized network software with advanced features such as virtual switch control, micro-segmentation, and distributed firewall. Conversely, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is praised for its simplicity in setup, flexibility in creating network security zones, and strong customer support.
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"One significant advantage of VMware NSX is the ability to provide advanced security at the micro-level, focusing on securing applications and workloads rather than just the network structure or virtualization-based network security."
"It gives more security and micro-segmentation. It helps to set network configurations in an easy way."
"The most valuable features are the micro-segmentation and integrated security options."
"Overall, I would say the solution has been quite stable."
"Their technical support is very good. They help us figure out solutions when we have problems."
"It is easy to implement it."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It follows a certain structure and you won't miss a step. It's all on the same level, step by step."
"The most valuable features are stability and low cost."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"In our version, when using the terminal server, we cannot exclude user tasks for each session."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"We have been satisfied with the technical support. They were able to solve our problems. However, they could be faster."
"The next release of NSX should try to make Kubernetes and container integration a little easier than it is now. It's quite a complicated process."
"I would like them to make integration with other vendors easier."
"NSX could better integrate with open-source products. Of course, it integrates with some, but I know many people are uncomfortable deploying NSX with certain open-source solutions, such as Radar."
"The integration with other brands is not the best."
"Occasionally the licensing is not very clear. They should make it easier to understand."
"We would like tenant segmentation available in future releases."
"It could be more user-friendly, but it's manageable. When we add a specific node to this particular NSX and the configuration changes, it won't push through the errors where required, but it'll accept it. However, while using it, we will have issues. It can also be more stable."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while VMware NSX is ranked 1st in Cloud and Data Center Security with 93 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while VMware NSX is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware NSX writes "Allows for seamless micro-segmentation and the support is exceptional". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas VMware NSX is most compared with Nutanix Flow Network Security, Illumio, Cisco ACI, Cisco Secure Workload and Cisco DNA Center. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. VMware NSX report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors and best Microsegmentation Software vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.