We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"For the past two and a half years, we have not had a need to open a tech support ticket. It is really stable. In the past, our experience with tech support was that they were extremely helpful."
"The most valuable features in A10 Networks Thunder ADC are the ease of configuration, user-friendliness, and simplicity to sell to customers."
"A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"The ease of use is very good. It's very robust. It just sits and works."
"The ADCs are pretty straightforward and easy to use. There is a GUI base where you can go in and see everything, but they also have a CLI base where you can use a command and get the information that you want, very fast."
"The solution is user-friendly and the CLA troubleshooting is easier compared to other solutions."
"The SLB and GSLB load balancing are the most valuable features. They meet our need to do server-side load balancing and global site load balancing so we can distribute traffic, not only intra-data center, but inter-data center."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is it helps our delivery team to make policies and rules for application."
"What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"F5's attack signatures and automation are the most valuable features. The disaster recovery capabilities are also excellent. You don't need to do anything. It has automatic failover from production."
"Initial setup was straightforward. We were up and running in three hours."
"The most valuable feature is being able to manipulate the iRules, so you can send traffic to different avenues."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"The F5 interface is easy to use."
"Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"The setup depends on certain situations. In certain scenarios, it may be more complex than others. For example, while the initial configuration may be easy, the environment itself may be complex and that may limit the ease of deployment. It is easy for those who understand their environment."
"There is room for improvement in the upgrading process. Sometimes we have to contact A10 for verification of some stuff."
"The solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"Traffic flow issues are very difficult, as there's no means for us to analyze the traffic coming in or out of the appliance without technical support."
"There are competitors that have more features."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"The one gap I saw was that pure LBN integration is a little tricky. The insertion of F5 in LBN is a little tricky. They need to work on something, on products by which they can insert F5 in any sort of cloud environment."
"LTM would be improved with the inclusion of signature-based blocking."
"The SharePoint SSO part has some room for improvement."
"Internet and cloud support could be improved."
"In terms of pricing, it could be more competitive."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"It would be good to have better traffic and better data. It would be nice to have more granularity to see packets in terms of the header details, the analytics, etc. It would be nice if that was also part of it and to have analytics added to the traffic."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Radware Alteon, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.