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."Thanks to all these security processes, our users can access our infrastructure with the certainty that we will not be compromised."
"Once we install and connect the VPN service, it keeps on running until we disconnect."
"For a basic setup, implementation is quite easy."
"It is easy to install the Endpoint Remote Access VPN client on different platforms."
"It operates effectively, particularly during challenges like adversities or infrastructure issues."
"The most valuable feature is the seamless access."
"One of the most outstanding features is the ability to deliver third-party services and achieve double authenticity with integrated identities."
"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 always use technical support and the team helps us very well. They're able to effectively find and fix issues and they respond very quickly."
"The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium."
"I have found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) to be stable."
"Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"Good application firewall."
"We are using Application Security Manager (ASM) as a web application firewall, where there is a security signature to avoid a web level breach."
"This is a solution that does what it's supposed to do at the price point."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN's enterprise support could be improved."
"There were some issues with automation and instability."
"Price category and smooth renewal of agreement should be considered for flawless and quick onboarding of clients and partners."
"I would like the support to be faster."
"They need to increase their timeout. Right now, it will fail after ten seconds, however, it shouldn't fail until after 20 seconds."
"When you want to deploy a new Check Point agent, it is really a pain in the butt. For example, Windows 10 now has updates almost every couple of months. It changes the versioning and things under the hood. These are things that I don't understand, because I'm not a Windows person. However, I know that the Check Point client is installed on the Windows machine, and if the Check Point client's not kept up-to-date, then it's functionality breaks. It has to be up-to-date with the Windows versions. Check Point has to update the client more often. Now, the problem is that the Check Point client is not easy to update on remote computers and it's not easy to deploy a new client."
"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 interface itself needs improvement. When you need to create something, you have to go through a lot of steps. It needs to be simplified."
"I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."
"If we decide to migrate to the cloud, I don't think that BIG-IP is a good solution and we probably won't use it."
"The solution is scalable."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"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 57 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 Private Access, 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.