Skip to content

Akamai vs Akamai Web Application Protector

Based on 52 and 1 real audits

View Akamai details | View Akamai Web Application Protector details
MetricAkamaiAkamai Web Application ProtectorWinner
Performance3537Akamai Web Application Protector
Accessibility8893Akamai Web Application Protector
Best Practices8496Akamai Web Application Protector
SEO8792Akamai Web Application Protector
Security6361Akamai
TTFB814ms1368msAkamai
Composite7174Akamai Web Application Protector
Performance
Akamai
35
Akamai Web Application Protector
37
Accessibility
Akamai
88
Akamai Web Application Protector
93
Security
Akamai
63
Akamai Web Application Protector
61
SEO
Akamai
87
Akamai Web Application Protector
92
Composite
Akamai
71
Akamai Web Application Protector
74

Akamai Web Application Protector outperforms Akamai in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 71). Akamai leads in security, TTFB.

When to choose Akamai

Choose Akamai when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Akamai Web Application Protector

Choose Akamai Web Application Protector when your primary concern is best practices and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 52 audited Akamai sites and 1 audited Akamai Web Application Protector sites in the BeaverCheck database. Every audit runs the same 100+ checks — Lighthouse performance, security headers, accessibility, SEO, server response time — against a real URL. No vendor input, no sponsorship, no affiliate links. Read the full methodology →

Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.

FAQ

Which is faster, Akamai or Akamai Web Application Protector?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Akamai Web Application Protector sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (37 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, Akamai or Akamai Web Application Protector?
Akamai sites score higher on security analysis (63 vs 61 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Akamai or Akamai Web Application Protector?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Akamai Web Application Protector (93 vs 88). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, Akamai or Akamai Web Application Protector?
Akamai Web Application Protector sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 87 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), Akamai or Akamai Web Application Protector?
Akamai sites show lower Time to First Byte (814 ms vs 1368 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose Akamai or Akamai Web Application Protector for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Akamai Web Application Protector scores higher on overall composite score while Akamai may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback