Akamai vs JW Player

• Very advanced compression algorithms and a global content delivery network.
• Sophisticated security features.
• On-demand network scalability.
• Great dashboard and real-time reporting

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

• The user interface can be daunting and confusing to new users
• The pricing tiers are often not competitive with standard CDN service offerings from other companies

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

• Akamai offers a number of front-end optimizations that you can choose to implement to speed up page loads and offer a better customer experience
• Akamai's high prices can often negate savings that you get from offloading file-hosting responsibility; ensure your use case demands Akamai's offerings before moving ahead

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