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."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."
"It is easy to install the Endpoint Remote Access VPN client on different platforms."
"The solution offers high scalability as far as adding more users."
"We can integrate remote access to our branches through Check Point services."
"For us, it was essential to integrate with Active Directory, which is our credentials repository."
"The most important feature of Check Point Remote Access VPN is the multiple factor authentication."
"I like the fact that Remote Access allows the administrator to control and manage things. It makes things smoother, and it has been an excellent experience."
"One of the features that I like most about this software is that it has a very intuitive, simple, and versatile interface that makes it easy to use and configure."
"F5 has many capabilities for load balancing and web application firewall features."
"Our experience has been very good, in terms of performance, and securing our application infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"BIG-IP LTM's most valuable feature is that it allows you to seamlessly add more servers without impacting your application's configuration."
"The Local Traffic Manager (LTM) provides a simple low balance and SSL decryption, in addition to some TCP parameters, for incoming and outgoing traffic to redirect appropriate traffic patterns to appropriate servers."
"Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot."
"It is stable."
"What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"The client-side UI is fundamental, and there is nothing to see."
"Compliance Check on Check Point should be improved by having more configurable conditions to support multi-platforms and adding more granularity."
"Connection of devices from various locations is efficient though there are a few challenges when there is a network failure."
"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."
"When you need to create something, you have to follow many steps and I think that should be simplified."
"We would like to implement HTML5 (clientless access) in the product without installing any additional software."
"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."
"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."
"Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy."
"The auto logout feature after three minutes is terrible. I wish they would make that longer, since it is not a feature that we can change."
"The SharePoint SSO part has some room for improvement."
"I would like to see F-5 implement a regular routing like in other Linux-based devices. When we try and integrate in some complex networks, we have to use some additional routing scenarios from a Layer 3 perspective, then we have some problems. It would be great if this were fixed somehow."
"The product is expensive."
"Reporting could be improved and configuration made easier."
"The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models."
"A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function."
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.
