We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and TeamViewer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Remote Access solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The performance of the solution is valuable."
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"The load balancing features are valuable."
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"This is a product that is easy to install and integrate, and it is simple to use."
"The product allows us to create customized portals for your users."
"Stickiness is the most valuable feature of the product."
"The most valuable feature is the virtual IP creation. It's our most frequently used feature."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is its ease of use and beneficial remote access."
"It's a user-friendly product."
"The implementation process is simple."
"TeamViewer is a scalable solution."
"It is easy to use and has a pretty good UI."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is user-friendliness."
"I don't know of any performance problems with TeamViewer - generally, it's a stable product."
"Ease of use was the number-one thing. It's an industry leader for ease of use, specifically on the client-side, which is the absolutely critical thing. If I want to connect to somebody, how easily can I — without seeing their computer — walk them through the steps to install it to a point where I can key in the code and help them resolve their situation?... TeamViewer is just a dead-solid, easy answer."
"The solution’s GUI looks very old."
"In my opinion, the GUI side needs some improvement based on my usage. Sometimes, it doesn't work as efficiently as the CLI side."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The operational deployment is not great."
"Cloud services are something that F5 Access Policy Manager could do better"
"The price of this product can be improved."
"TeamViewer can improve by making the interface more user-friendly. It looks very basic, they can make it more modern and easy to use."
"The performance could always be better."
"Voice communication and screen communication or face-to-face communication could be improved."
"The solution could improve by increasing or removing the time limitation on the use of a session."
"Some of the additional features, like the meeting stuff, is making it too cluttered."
"I have noticed that when I access another person's computer, sometimes the tab is visible, and sometimes it is not, which can be difficult."
"The support could improve their speed."
"I didn't like the fact that you had to install a client for remote support. If you didn't install the client, you were very limited in terms of what you could do. For a whole enterprise, it is just not an easy task to install a client on everything. Even if you're using SCCM, it is an undertaking. For transient clients that you don't necessarily support a hundred percent of the time, it would be nice to be able to connect to them and support their issues without having to install something on their machines. In my previous company, we were looking at this solution as being a collaborative tool for the enterprise in terms of video conferencing, calling, and scheduling. They were working on bringing a bunch of products together to make their suite a little more integrated, but it really wasn't at the point where we wanted it to be in terms of integration. We looked at it, reviewed it, and tested it out a bit. We then decided to go with Microsoft Teams. It has the clunkiness of having separate modules that aren't totally integrated. There are different methods for doing different things, which makes it a little bit more complicated. There should be the same way whether you are doing remote support or just calls."
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 10th in Remote Access with 13 reviews while TeamViewer is ranked 1st in Remote Access with 85 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2, while TeamViewer 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 TeamViewer writes "Solid cross-platform remote control, but with kludgy central management and some serious feature issues on macOS". 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 Microsoft Entra ID, whereas TeamViewer is most compared with TeamViewer Tensor, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Parallels Access, ISL Online and BeyondTrust Remote Support. See our F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. TeamViewer report.
See our list of best Remote Access vendors.
We monitor all Remote Access 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.
