We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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 solution offers great security features, including zero-day protection, malware protection, anti-phishing, et cetera."
"The management of the solution is very simple. It allows for a single view of all the endpoints."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN is a stable solution."
"Scalability is great. We have been able to grow as a corporation due in part to this type of solution."
"The most important feature of Check Point Remote Access VPN is the multiple factor authentication."
"One of the most outstanding features is the ability to deliver third-party services and achieve double authenticity with integrated identities."
"It is stable most of the time."
"Access is browser-based only and requires no additional client installation."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is the most valuable feature."
"It can determine if the system is going down, then route the traffic somewhere else."
"The product is quite flexible."
"It is an easy way to build application policies (graphical)."
"It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware."
"The F5 interface is easy to use."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is good."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN's connectivity and establishment takes time and needs to be faster."
"Connection of devices from various locations is efficient though there are a few challenges when there is a network failure."
"We are very happy with the Windows client. You log in with the VPN for the full client, you do the log in there. But for Linux machines, they don't have a full client to install. It is important because we have some users that use Linux and they don't have a specific application from Check Point to use. That is something that could be improved."
"This is the best version we are using, however, if some changes can be made in the next release, I'd like to see adjustments to the time period and internet connectivity."
"The fully-featured security module is only supported on Windows and Mac systems, which means that organizations with Linux will face issues providing secure access."
"The connection has gotten less smooth as the number of users increases. The issue is that the logs fill up quickly. Too many users are connecting remotely. It worked great when we only had a few remote connections. Now, it is disconnecting people and dropping the internet connection."
"I cannot see the full effect of the endpoint solution because it relies on having access to the DNF queries, which might not go through the Check Point firewall when you're using it for perimeter networks. Check Point will not identify the actual source of the net queries. This may be related to the architecture, however, and not poor product issues. I don't know if it can be improved on the Check Point side or not."
"We'd like to integrate Check Point into the Remote Access VPN solution and have the ability to integrate multiple devices as access points through the solution."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"I would like F5 to incorporate the ability to create your own custom roles and customised permissions within the product set. I have seen many customers wanting to give a certain level of access for the purposes of out-of-hours servicing to out-of-hours staff or teams that fulfill an operations type role."
"For integration with other AWS environments, we do some tie-ins with some autoscaling groups. This has been challenging for us. We have had issues, where when autoscaling groups scale up, there are some instances which are not showing up in the proper size. Then, those IPs would get registered with F5, but never get released. Therefore, we are ending up with a whole bunch of ghosted IPs."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"If one virtual portion is unavailable, it can cause issues."
"Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"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."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 4th in Remote Access with 60 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point Remote Access VPN writes "Is easy to use and has a nice interface, but the scalability needs to improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Check Point Harmony Mobile, Fortinet FortiClient and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy. See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
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.
