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 is easy to install, centrally managed, and stable, with good technical support and a straightforward setup."
"The biggest advantage of Check Point Remote Access VPN is that we already use the Check Point firewall. We only needed to enable the feature and do the configuration in order to enable the VPN feature. We didn't need to buy or manage new hardware. This was a big advantage."
"The secure hotspot access for enabling good network connectivity is great."
"I found the MEP feature the most valuable. This has improved users' latency allowing the users to connect to the nearest Azure Check Point VM."
"The management of the solution is very simple. It allows for a single view of all the endpoints."
"It is stable most of the time."
"For us, it was essential to integrate with Active Directory, which is our credentials repository."
"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."
"BIG-IP LTM's most valuable feature is that it allows you to seamlessly add more servers without impacting your application's configuration."
"ASM for WAF."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"We like is how they integrate nicely with the Oracle PeopleSoft application."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"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."
"NetFlow balancing and traffic balancing are good features."
"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."
"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."
"There is always room for innovation and the addition of new features."
"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."
"We encounter challenges for the product’s installation and troubleshooting processes compared to other VPN products."
"There needs to be a way to create a VPN client specific to our environment so that we can easily lock down who can connect."
"They need to increase their timeout. Right now, it will fail after ten seconds, however, it shouldn't fail until after 20. If you don't get on your phone right away and check on your authentications, it will kick you out."
"They need to increase their timeout. Right now, it will fail after ten seconds, however, it shouldn't fail until after 20 seconds."
"The solution's hardware quality needs improvement."
"Security and Reporting."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"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."
"This is a very expensive solution."
"The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager."
"The analytics should provide insight into latency across various traffic routes and virtual servers."
"They could improve the product's ease of use. There is some confusion how to operate it."
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 31 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 35 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 "Flexible authentification, good integration, and helpful compliance capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Great support, helpful documentation, and is user-friendly". 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.