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."Check Point Remote Access VPN is a stable solution."
"To maintain the authorization of the connected user, Check Point provides multi-factor authentication for an RA VPN client to make sure legitimate users have access to resources."
"Our users find the interface very comfortable to use."
"The IPSec VPN, Mobile Access, and Identity Awareness are three of the blades with which we have been working with since the pandemic. This has given us great mobility, making our network more dynamic."
"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."
"The security of the solution is a good feature, the stability is a valuable feature, and the customization is also a nice feature."
"The safety of online interactions when working with this product has enabled members to convene productive meetings without fear of being attacked."
"The solution offers great security features, including zero-day protection, malware protection, anti-phishing, et cetera."
"BIG-IP LTM's most valuable feature is that it allows you to seamlessly add more servers without impacting your application's configuration."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"It offers features Kemp doesn't provide. For example, there are predefined templates for handling Office 365. You can download them for automatic configuration."
"The capability is at a seven or eight out of ten."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"The most valuable features are DNS, APM, and ASM. Additionally, it is easy to use and you have a lot of flexibility to use the solution within a network."
"I was able to simply and quickly set up the WAF rules and security, and also set up easily complex policies and rules which gave me some great features to redirect."
"They could add more features, like the security to block off the doors, or create another hatch, something like this. They could make the features safer, add malware to make my mail and the Kryon system safer and to protect data at an earlier stage."
"Connection of devices from various locations is efficient though there are a few challenges when there is a network failure."
"We would like to implement HTML5 (clientless access) in the product without installing any additional software."
"Without a doubt and with the new trends in technology, Check Point should already have a blade with a 2MFA solution and not through some other vendor."
"It would be good to have Remote Access VPN solutions for Check Point edge services."
"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."
"The maximum it is giving us is only 5 licenses and if you need more, they must be purchased separately."
"Generally, the license is included with the Check Point gateway licensing, however, in terms of the number of users that can be activated for use, it is generally five users."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"The synchronization does works fairly well. However, if I were to make changes, I would make it easier to start the sync process."
"They need to develop the reporting tools further."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side."
"The pricing of the product is a bit too high."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."
"Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery."
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.