We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Radware Alteon based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The support experience is better than average."
"It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features."
"The solution isn't too expensive. The license allows you to license what you need and leave out what you don't need."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."
"With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform."
"Very easy to implement and works well."
"F5's user-friendly interface and seamless integration stand out as the most valuable features for us."
"There are a lot of good features."
"The product offers high availability."
"I like the ADC feature and the global certificate feature."
"The interface is easy, it's friendly, and has good alerting."
"The solution has been very stable."
"The integrated application protection provided by Alteon is very good. It really helps to avoid false positives in some cases. It provides important granularity to avoid a situation in which security or cybersecurity scenarios escape us."
"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 aspect is that it establishes user security."
"I am finding SSL-TLS acceleration the most valuable function, with certificate management. It is easy to generate certificates and assign them to services"
"You have to buy another module with an extra license, to have the authentication feature."
"The administrator's user interface and some of the settings can sometimes be very complicated to understand."
"For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees."
"The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use."
"The accuracy of the automatic learning feature needs improvement."
"There is a gap in report management."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"While F5 Advanced WAF does limit the number of partners in certain regions to ensure successful business transactions, they could also benefit from expanding their partnerships and making it easier for more people to learn about and become experts in F5 Advanced WAF. By doing so, they could increase the reach and exposure of their solution, similar to how Cisco has become widely recognized in the security industry."
"The reverse proxy piece is a little bit complicated. If the reverse proxy were easier to implement, that would help."
"A feature that I would like to see included in the next version might be a better analysis when working with crypt issues. Right now, it is very manual; you load it into Alteon and it runs. It would be interesting to see a more dynamic process."
"The interface implementation can be improved."
"We recently had a problem with the tables Obsolete ARP which was observed by the support team. It would be good to diagnose and solve this problem with a patch since it is not documented that it will be solved in later updates."
"I would like for the load balancing to work with premier and the cloud, a mix of premium and cloud."
"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."
"Their support can be better. The Radware management is very proactive. We can connect to anybody in Radware Management in India. We can even connect with the MD of Radware India. However, their lower level staff should be more proactive towards the customers."
"Load balancing needs improvement. It needs better integration. I heard f5 works as a DNS operator which is not available in this solution. It would be better if that was implemented."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 10th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 33 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". 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". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Citrix Web App and API Protection, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, A10 Networks Thunder ADC, HAProxy and NGINX Plus. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Radware Alteon 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.
