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 most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the easy identification of events and customization. We can pinpoint our settings."
"The initial setup was was easy to install."
"It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to have a pool of resources that can distribute your traffic, and that is a plus for me. My company tried to look into a competitor, Imperva, but it was lacking that capability, so F5 Advanced WAF outperforms Imperva."
"We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country. It has a replication feature. Licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the security features and the protection."
"The solution is easily accessible on mobile and laptop devices."
"It can scale."
"The best part is that we are able to manage it easily. It is easy to manage and easy to integrate with third-party applications."
"With Alteon, the load-balancing options are practically unlimited. We haven't had any issues with offloading, decryption, putting in cookies, or any other load-balancing features. We can check URLs, etc., on the back end for load balancing instead of running a TCP check. We're also doing some certificate stuff on there. Alteon covers all of the standard load-balancing techniques, and we employ most of them daily."
"The strength of this solution is the application delivery controller."
"The link load balancing is a great feature."
"A user-friendly and reasonably priced solution."
"Radware has been characterized by being extremely robust. This gives us the confidence to offer our users a continuous service."
"The health status information, with its highly detailed reporting, has saved us time on troubleshooting. We have the precise information needed that helps us find different types of situations."
"The command line interface is simple and very user-friendly."
"They could provide better pricing."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"People who want to work with the device have to be pro in Linux"
"Scalability could be improved."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"The Sandbox integration feature could be improved."
"The reporting could be clearer and embedded to include our movement data."
"I would like this solution to have an integration tool that will convert configuration from other software, into readable values for this product during implementation."
"Scalability should be based on customer requirements."
"The solution could be more open to additional third-party add-ons being integrated into it."
"The user interface can be improved."
"The GUI needs to be improved. Right now, the solution isn't so user-friendly."
"I would like to see the loading documentation improved."
"Support is an area that needs improvement."
"Support is very important because if we get good support, we'll be able to sell and supply more numbers."
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.