Akamai vs JW Player

• Edge caching with Akamai's CDN tools allow for offloading repetitive work from more expensive application servers
• Akamai's DDOS protection services are amongst the most robust in the industry

Read full review

• Ease of use: We have several hundred people who use JW Player on a weekly basis and we needed to be able to train them quickly. JW Player is very intuitive and easy to understand.
• Reliability: We rarely ever have any unscheduled downtime with JW Player.
• Analytics: We wanted to be able to chart growth over a period of weeks and months and JW Analytivs give us a good view into how our video is being consumed. The realtime analytics are especially helpful.

Read full review

• Cost. Akamai is an enterprise level product and the cost can be pretty expensive for smaller organizations.
• Activations can take a while and therefore if you are doing a lot of testing on different scenarios you may spend hours waiting for activations to take effect. However this may not be an issue with Akamai itself but the fact that rules need to be propagated to all edge servers.

Read full review

• I would like to be able to follow the analytics of a video series over the course of time. Currently, It's difficult to do that.
• I would like to have multiple logins for a single account.
• I don't
• I don't think there is any revision history. After a video is posted we occasionally need to change a headline or description and the update doesn't show up.

Read full review

• Speed up delivery of content and improved user experience for users coming to our website
• Save cost as we do not need as many back end servers to run our web instance because majority of load is being handled by Akamai servers

Read full review

• Positive in the sense that we have been able to integrate its use and their platform for our VideoproFile.net client videos hosting and distribution, with far greater functionality and features than just using the stand-alone player as a plugin for the site.
• There have been some negative impacts such as the playlist RSS feed iTunes incompatibility as already mentioned.
• Another negative impact on some videos with the JW Platform is its encoding qualities seem to be lesser than popular video sharing sites such as Vimeo, YouTube and Dailymotion; this is only evident on certain videos, however serious enough that the only alternative is to encode our own, load to our own CDN, then load via URL to the JW Platform, then uploading a separate image for its thumbnail. This is a work-around, but seems completely unnecessary given that since most clients are inclined to just use the FREE video sharing sites anyway, we cannot afford to see some videos appear to display blurry images at places within the videos encoded and hosted on JW Platform. This also places a greater burden on us to review every video hosted with JW Platform as a measure of QA...steps we'd prefer NOT to take if we could rely on its quality of encoding matching that of the most popular video sharing sites.

Read full review