We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Fortinet FortiWeb based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: F5 Advanced WAF has an edge over Fortinet FortiWeb in this comparison. According to reviews, it has more advanced features than Fortinet FortiWeb. In addition, it received better marks in the ROI category.
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"It protects and mitigates damage in the network."
"My favorite feature of F5 is the ability to play around with the ciphers. I also like the ability to have an immediate display of the support IDs when a real blockage occurs. The protection offered is great."
"It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features."
"It's flexible and powerful, and the users can input their own rules to the system."
"I like all of the features, but the main one is the attack signatures."
"The most valuable features of the F5 Advanced WAF are the enhanced ASM and the performance. Additionally, the usability and effectiveness are very good."
"The solution uses AI to protect against botnet attacks."
"I have recently been looking at the SSL certificate features and the learning mode of the appliance. This appliance learns from the pattern of SSL attacks."
"The deployment was very easy."
"The support is quite good."
"When we had Cisco we had around thirty thousand entries on our firewalls. Now we are down to three thousand. Fortinet has a mechanism to detect all of your entries which are not used, and it can clean it up."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The most valuable features in Fortinet FortiWeb are sandboxing and threat prevention."
"It's easy to use and allows us to integrate solutions together."
"FortiWeb provides the level of security we need at an excellent price point. It's easy to deploy and operationally efficient."
"There should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable."
"One area for improvement in the product is its SSO integration, which posed challenges and required significant effort to resolve."
"I would like to see the API Protection improved."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"People who want to work with the device have to be pro in Linux"
"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."
"The reporting could be clearer and embedded to include our movement data."
"A user interface or dashboard for troubleshooting is needed."
"Fortinet FortiWeb could improve in reference architecture for different deployment scenarios."
"It may be better if it were easier to create roles."
"They could improve their support a little bit for faster response time."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The initial setup in our data center was somewhat complex."
"The documentation for the machine learning could be better."
"We have had problems with deployments where we've had to contact technical support to resolve them."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Fortinet FortiWeb report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.