Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs AttackIQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 8, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation
Ranking in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Cloud and Data Center Security (1st), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (12th), Microsegmentation Software (3rd)
AttackIQ
Ranking in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
7th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (72nd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (34th), Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) category, the mindshare of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of AttackIQ is 8.6%, up from 8.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation0.8%
AttackIQ8.6%
Other90.6%
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
 

Featured Reviews

Uday Varma - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers granular control and ease of policy creation with features like telemetry and micro-segmentation but incident tagging is missing
Our customers use the solution for micro-segmentation within the data center or cloud environments. One customer uses it for their on-premises infrastructure, deployed at the code level across their massive network. Another customer uses it in a data center to monitor microsegmentation for their 500-node workload. Moreover, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation has helped our customers manage and secure traffic between different applications or workloads. Earlier, they were using VMware NSX-v, which offered good logging for distributed services on an analytical level. However, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation provides them with better overall visibility and granular control over-segmentation, even for inter-application and inter-routing traffic.
BN
Overall, a good user experience and works well but is hard to set up
I can't think of any features that are lacking just now. It does everything I need it to do. I don't have too much experience with the solution. I need more time to really study the solution to see if there are any shortcomings. The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time.

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 features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"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 label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"Guardicore makes its own rule set automatically, so we can work fast when creating a rule set."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"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."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"Overall, I've had a good experience with the product. It's worked well for me."
 

Cons

"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."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"I would rate the stability a six out of ten, where one is low and ten is high stability."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"GuardiCore has made some new changes to the license now. We've seen monthly and annual licenses based on a subscription. We have a few clients that pay anywhere from $25,000 a year."
"Compared to the pricing we were seeing from both Illumio and Edgewise, Guardicore was very competitive."
"Guardicore Centra provides better value for money than NSX, was the other solution that we looked at, which was too expensive for what it does."
"The price is the same as other products in the market. There's no price argument to choose one or the other product, it will cost the customer approximately the same."
"This is not a cheap solution but you have to consider the bigger picture, which is what it is giving you."
"The customer would complain about the cost."
"The pricing is too high."
"The solution is reasonably priced and I would rate it a six out of ten. The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions are best for your needs.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Guardicore Centra?
I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. I know other micro-segmentation tools like Cisco or Illumio, and so I think they are in the middle.
What do you like most about Guardicore Infection Monkey?
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 mi...
What needs improvement with Guardicore Infection Monkey?
When we have more than one interface, we can only have one policy for both interfaces. Normally, you have assets with a production interface and a server interface that are only for management. But...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Guardicore Centra, GuardiCore
DeepSurface
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Santander, Frontier Airlines, OpenLink, Intermountain Healthcare, Cellcom, BancoBASE
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cymulate, Pentera, Picus Security and others in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS). Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.