We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Radware LinkProof 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."Traffic Learning is the most valuable feature."
"There is a lot of documentation available."
"I have found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) to be stable."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"The solution is easy to install. It's a straightforward process."
"The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof for traffic distribution is its DNS management capability."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof is that it supports link load balance."
"The performance and stability are the most valuable features."
"Provides good performance and scalability."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version."
"The management interface is unclear, complex, and not concise. I would like a better user interface."
"F5 BIG-IP LTM can improve on the SSL loading which includes the authentication of certificates. Although, most of these issues have been solved there are still some issue that persists."
"The user interface of F5 BIG-IP LTM is old and could improve."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."
"F5 has another solution to load balance servers on the cloud, which they got after the purchase of NGINX. It is deployed as Kubernetes or something like that, but the problem now is that they have two solutions for two situations. They should make F5 deployable on the cloud."
"The solution lacks HA configuration."
"Radware LinkProof's marketing efforts need improvement to raise awareness about its capabilities and compete effectively in the market."
"Radware LinkProof’s customer support could be improved."
"Could have more customizations on the dashboard."
"There are certain features I would like to see in the next release."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Radware LinkProof is ranked 13th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 5 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Radware LinkProof is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware LinkProof writes "Supports link load balance and has good stability". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Radware LinkProof is most compared with Radware Alteon, A10 Networks Thunder ADC, Fortinet FortiADC and HAProxy. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Radware LinkProof 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.
