We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Radware Alteon 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."The most valuable features in A10 Networks Thunder ADC are the ease of configuration, user-friendliness, and simplicity to sell to customers."
"It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"A10 Networks Thunder ADC is an easy-to-use and flexible solution."
"The Deterministic CGNAT feature is valuable for us."
"We have two appliances and I'm able to move my application from one appliance to another. I don't have to move my whole A10 to be active on the other side or to be passive on the other side. If an application is having a problem, I can just move it using a command."
"Compared to F5, which I used about six years ago, the A10 is much easier when routing. You don't have to use the wildcard bits to route it between the different segments. It's much less troublesome to configure."
"The solution is user-friendly and the CLA troubleshooting is easier compared to other solutions."
"Feature-wise, A10 Networks Thunder ADC is better for troubleshooting...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect is that it establishes user security."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability. During the time that I have been using it, it has not undergone a service failure... And with the integrated application protection, we have not suffered from attacks anymore."
"The most valuable feature is the load-balancing reverse proxy."
"I like the ADC feature and the global certificate feature."
"I found the link load balancer and server load balancer are the most valuable."
"It is easy to expand. Our clients are enterprise-size."
"The features that mitigate attacks are very valuable."
"The best features are the security through the web application firewall, the functionality that the solution offers, being a load balancer with the security functionality on top of it, and the ease of administration."
"When it comes to support, there is always room for improvement. First call resolution is not always there for urgent issues. The first call resolution is something that could be improved upon."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"The solution should add automation features in the next release."
"Currently, the solution's WAF features are fewer. They should consider increasing their WAF features."
"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."
"It scaled well for our numbers, up to 3 million subscribers for our most crowded region but I would like to see the same scalability numbers for the virtualized version as well."
"A graphical dashboard for analyzing performance is needed."
"They need to make the user interface (GUI) a bit more usable and intuitive. Some features can be a little difficult to find at times. Sometimes, the workflow in the GUI doesn't match the workflow of an actual workflow. E.g., if I want to create a load balancer application, sometimes you've got to do things a bit out of order in the GUI in order to make it work right."
"Recently our team was talking about the things you can customize in Alteon and the level of programming that doing so demands. I would like to see more information on how to customize the programming and troubleshoot."
"It can be improved by combining the web application firewall (WAF) facility."
"I would like to see future enhancements in security, specifically in threat protection."
"The solution could be more open to additional third-party add-ons being integrated into it."
"We don't integrate anything with it because most things don't integrate with Radware. If it were F5, we could integrate it. We can integrate F5 with practically anything that integrates with a load balancer, but that's not the case with Alteon."
"You need to have pretty good internal knowledge of the solution."
"I would like to see the loading documentation improved."
"I would like the solution to display and help visualize the reference map more easily. I would also like to better understand where queries come from and know which users are consulting the application, along with which app."
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 33 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. 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 Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, F5 Advanced WAF, HAProxy and NGINX Plus. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. Radware Alteon 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.