While Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is a very powerful solution, there are a few areas where it could be improved. One of the main challenges is the initial deployment and policy design complexity. In large environments, understanding all application dependencies and creating the right policies can take time and requires close coordination with application teams. The user interface and policy management can also be improved. As the number of policies grows, managing and organizing them becomes slightly complex. A more simplified or intuitive policy structure would help operational teams. Another area is integration with other security tools such as SIEM or SOAR platforms. While integration is possible, making it more seamless and easier to configure would add value. Additionally, the reporting and dashboard could be enhanced to provide more customizable and business-level insights, especially for management and reporting. One small improvement I would suggest for Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is having more automation capabilities for policy creation and recommendation. For example, AI-driven suggestions based on observed traffic patterns would help reduce manual effort during the initial policy design. It would also help to have more predefined templates for common use cases, especially for industries such as banking, to speed up deployment. Another area is enhanced reporting customization where we can easily generate business-level dashboards for management and compliance teams without any additional effort.
I think the pricing is very high. It is a big cost. The price of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is very expensive, but it is important to the enterprise. I think it is more or less.
Especialista em segurança da informação at a tech consulting company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
Dec 23, 2025
I believe Akamai Guardicore Segmentation could be improved with a feature to filter, and I believe implementing MFA would be very useful and helpful to us.
Senior Security Analyst at a retailer with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Dec 11, 2025
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation can be improved because keeping it up to date is difficult since it is SaaS-based and updates are not on a regular schedule; I have to reach out to my contact to ask them to update to a newer version, and it would be helpful if updates were on a regular cadence so that I would not have to remember to ask them. I think it is really valuable to take a course on Akamai Guardicore Segmentation because many things are not obvious in terms of how to do them correctly.
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 in the Guardicore architecture, you cannot give the production interface its own rule set and the management interface another rule set. You have to combine these rule sets into one. It’s a lack because security standards suggest a different way to secure management interfaces. So, I would like to have two separate rule sets for the basis of the device.
Solution Architecht at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Reseller
Top 10
Jan 30, 2024
Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have. The rest of the features are already industry standard.
It's not easy to learn to use this program. It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation.
There are always areas for improvement. It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud. So that could be improved. In future releases, I would like to see more integration with other products.
Specialist Master - Cyber Risk at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jul 3, 2023
Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we aren't required to write custom scripts by leveraging APIs quite often. The tool also has limitations on overall policy rules that can be configured on the platform (60k rules) which seems a lot but with big chatty applications and a huge application count to segment, this limit can turn out to be small if the goal is to segment a lot of application servers. Operationally there are too many clicks and analyses needed to do quick and safe changes (for e.g. label replacement) in the production environment. I think that the incorporation of automation templates for some standard use cases can help clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error.
Senior Principal Consultant Cloud/DevOps/ML/Kubernetes at Opticca
Real User
Dec 13, 2021
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. We would like to be able to go agentless. I'd like support for all types of Kubernetes and service mesh. They say, "Ah, we support this, we support that." This is not the case.
Information Security Engineering Consultant at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
May 6, 2021
They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware.
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation offers extensive visibility and micro-segmentation capabilities, integrating seamlessly with diverse environments to enhance security measures. Organizations benefit from its platform agnosticism and centralized firewall management, maximizing protection and operational efficiency.Known for its detailed network visibility, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation streamlines security operations across different platforms. It facilitates ease of policy creation and allows...
While Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is a very powerful solution, there are a few areas where it could be improved. One of the main challenges is the initial deployment and policy design complexity. In large environments, understanding all application dependencies and creating the right policies can take time and requires close coordination with application teams. The user interface and policy management can also be improved. As the number of policies grows, managing and organizing them becomes slightly complex. A more simplified or intuitive policy structure would help operational teams. Another area is integration with other security tools such as SIEM or SOAR platforms. While integration is possible, making it more seamless and easier to configure would add value. Additionally, the reporting and dashboard could be enhanced to provide more customizable and business-level insights, especially for management and reporting. One small improvement I would suggest for Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is having more automation capabilities for policy creation and recommendation. For example, AI-driven suggestions based on observed traffic patterns would help reduce manual effort during the initial policy design. It would also help to have more predefined templates for common use cases, especially for industries such as banking, to speed up deployment. Another area is enhanced reporting customization where we can easily generate business-level dashboards for management and compliance teams without any additional effort.
I think the pricing is very high. It is a big cost. The price of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is very expensive, but it is important to the enterprise. I think it is more or less.
I believe Akamai Guardicore Segmentation could be improved with a feature to filter, and I believe implementing MFA would be very useful and helpful to us.
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation can be improved because keeping it up to date is difficult since it is SaaS-based and updates are not on a regular schedule; I have to reach out to my contact to ask them to update to a newer version, and it would be helpful if updates were on a regular cadence so that I would not have to remember to ask them. I think it is really valuable to take a course on Akamai Guardicore Segmentation because many things are not obvious in terms of how to do them correctly.
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 in the Guardicore architecture, you cannot give the production interface its own rule set and the management interface another rule set. You have to combine these rule sets into one. It’s a lack because security standards suggest a different way to secure management interfaces. So, I would like to have two separate rule sets for the basis of the device.
Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have. The rest of the features are already industry standard.
It's not easy to learn to use this program. It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation.
Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it.
There are always areas for improvement. It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud. So that could be improved. In future releases, I would like to see more integration with other products.
Guardicore Centra should incorporate automation so that we aren't required to write custom scripts by leveraging APIs quite often. The tool also has limitations on overall policy rules that can be configured on the platform (60k rules) which seems a lot but with big chatty applications and a huge application count to segment, this limit can turn out to be small if the goal is to segment a lot of application servers. Operationally there are too many clicks and analyses needed to do quick and safe changes (for e.g. label replacement) in the production environment. I think that the incorporation of automation templates for some standard use cases can help clients make changes with confidence and without the possibility of human error.
Customers would want to see the cost improved.
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. We would like to be able to go agentless. I'd like support for all types of Kubernetes and service mesh. They say, "Ah, we support this, we support that." This is not the case.
They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware.