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."Our users find the interface very comfortable to use."
"The solution has been solid for me for over five years."
"The solution is easy to install, centrally managed, and stable, with good technical support and a straightforward setup."
"Check Point has been perfect for protecting us from any type of attack or data theft during remote management."
"It keeps us safe when browsing the internet and when sharing confidential information with our colleagues."
"We can integrate remote access to our branches through Check Point services."
"We have more control over the activity that users have on the internal network, thanks to the monitoring offered by Check Point and the security provided by the gateway."
"It can improve an organization by providing secure access to resources for traveling employees, which can help to reduce the risk of data breaches or other security incidents."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The v11 clustering is a new technology they have brought in that does not require improvement. They are the leader in it."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is good."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"F5 has many capabilities for load balancing and web application firewall features."
"The occasion in which we needed technical support, we didn't have problems with them, because they always answered our questions without any trouble."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"You have no ability to reserve a total number of licenses. The VPN user licenses are assigned per gateway, and if you enable MEP function is not so easy to size the gateway licenses."
"We would like to implement HTML5 (clientless access) in the product without installing any additional software."
"Improved scalability would allow the solution to handle larger numbers of users and devices without a significant impact on performance."
"The interface itself needs improvement. When you need to create something, you have to go through a lot of steps. It needs to be simplified."
"In the case of URL translation of the VPN Web portal, the requests made from the front end to the back end weren't valid (due to the use of dynamic subdomains). In the case of host translations, the request was made to the same host, however, we cannot specify the ports, which, in our case, are used to redirect to different servers."
"We encounter challenges for the product’s installation and troubleshooting processes compared to other VPN products."
"The authentication that we handle is through a .p12 certificate, however, we have integrated it with a 2MFA service through another provider. Something that could improve Check Point is if it had its own 2MFA service through a blade or some sort of application."
"We have noted some stability issues."
"BIG-IP LTM's sandboxing integration could be improved."
"Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking."
"The one gap I saw was that pure LBN integration is a little tricky. The insertion of F5 in LBN is a little tricky. They need to work on something, on products by which they can insert F5 in any sort of cloud environment."
"I used GitHub for autoscaling CloudFormation, and I found two bugs and I submitted them. Their implementation in GitHub could be cleaner and allow for a bit more customization."
"The ASM administration is quite complex. The topic itself is pretty complex, so it is not easy to provide a nice, clean interface. There are a lot of references and dependencies in-between the different subareas."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"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's hardware quality needs improvement."
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.
