We performed a comparison between Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure Active Directory is the preferred solution over F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager due to its advanced security features, customizable options, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. While F5 BIG-IP APM is noted for its reliability and stability, it is considered complex and costly, with room for improvement in reporting and management. Azure AD offers a more feature-rich solution with better integration options and a user-friendly management interface, along with a free basic tier and flexible pricing options, making it a better value for the money compared to F5 BIG-IP APM.
"The most valuable feature is the virtual IP creation. It's our most frequently used feature."
"The portal access was very good."
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"We have seen a return on investment from F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager. It provided access at a time when we didn't have it."
"Stickiness is the most valuable feature of the product."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"The load balancing features are valuable."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"All of the features are amazing, such as identity governance and privileged identity management."
"We use Verified ID to select and deselect users. During the pandemic, we had many users who left our organization or were no longer involved in certain projects but had their user credentials with them. To prevent data loss and data piracy, we deselected those remote users from Active Directory, and it was a very quick process."
"The central authentication server is most valuable. GPOs are useful for user and computer policies."
"Very stable and scalable IAM service with good SSO and authentication features."
"This solution is less time-consuming. We don't have to hire as many resources to give permissions to a particular user or group for any application."
"It's very good at not disrupting the user experience."
"https://www.itcentralstation.com/product_reviews/microsoft-bi-review-52460-by-amanda-zhou"
"We have not had any formal issues with scalability."
"The price of this product can be improved."
"F5 BIG-IP APM disconnects when you leave it for long enough, but that is natural for IT solutions to do. That's a little bit frustrating."
"Cloud services are something that F5 Access Policy Manager could do better"
"The initial setup was complex."
"We do not have knowledgeable support teams locally."
"I'd suggest improved documentation integration directly within the GUI. Right now, finding comprehensive documentation often requires going to external websites like the community portal."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"The solution is quite costly."
"It would be good to have more clarity around licensing."
"I want better integration between Azure AD and the on-prem environment because there are currently limitations that can hamper employee experience. We use a feature called password writeback, that can be challenging to implement in a hybrid environment. Employees can change their passwords using a self-service password reset (SSPR) feature, which reflects from the cloud to the on-prem identity, but not the other way around. Currently, there is no way to reflect passwords from on-prem identities to the cloud."
"The thing that is a bit annoying is the inability to nest groups. Because we run an Azure hybrid model, we have nested groups on-premise which does not translate well. So, we have written some scripts to kind of work around that. This is a feature request that we have put in previously to be able to use a group that is nested in Active Directory on-premise and have it handled the same way in Azure."
"From time to time it takes a little bit of time to replicate, with some of the applications—something like five to 10 minutes. I know that the design is not supposed to enable real-time replication with some of the applications. But, as an administrator, I would like to run a specific change or modification in Azure Active Directory and see it replicated almost immediately."
"The solution could be cheaper."
"Maybe there could be a dashboard view for Active Directory with some pie or bar charts on who is logged in, who is not logged in, and on the activity of each user for the past few days: whether they're active or not active."
"The integration between the Azure active directory and the traditional active directory could be improved upon."
"They should put the features of P1 and P2 into a single license."
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 6th in Access Management with 13 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Access Management with 190 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) writes " Facilitates packet inspection, modification, and offloading and offers visibility and troubleshooting capabilities, allowing for pre-production server testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Saves us time and money and features Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA". F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is most compared with Citrix Gateway, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ivanti Connect Secure, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Aruba ClearPass, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ping Identity Platform and Okta Workforce Identity. See our F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Access Management 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.