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."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."
"It allows everyone to work from home. If no one could work from home, then we wouldn't have a company, especially now during COVID-19. It's mission-critical, especially since it's currently being used. If there is a problem with it, we would really be screwed. We would be hard-pressed because we would have to figure out what solution we're going to go with, how to deploy it, how long it would take to deploy it, and how we'd even get it on people's computers if we couldn't VPN to them. It would be near impossible to just change to a new VPN solution right now."
"The secure hotspot access for enabling good network connectivity is great."
"Setting policies allow, block, and limit users' access."
"For us, it was essential to integrate with Active Directory, which is our credentials repository."
"Our users find the interface very comfortable to use."
"The management of the solution is very simple. It allows for a single view of all the endpoints."
"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."
"It integrates with AWS WAF, which makes it easy to deploy without changes to your infrastructure."
"The occasion in which we needed technical support, we didn't have problems with them, because they always answered our questions without any trouble."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"F5 has many capabilities for load balancing and web application firewall features."
"The most valuable feature is the proxy."
"The setup is pretty easy."
"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."
"It improves the overall performance of applications by decreasing the burden on servers associated with managing and maintaining applications and network sessions, as well as by performing application-specific tasks."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes we have some small problems with Check Point Remote Access VPN. For example, problems with authentication."
"We would like to implement HTML5 (clientless access) in the product without installing any additional software."
"Bug Fixes and enhancement requests should be remediated earlier."
"We would like to see support for a layer seven VPN over UDP."
"There was complexity in the initial setup."
"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."
"There are some aspects of F5 BIG-IP that could be improved, the main one being virtual machine support. We have seen that even with the virtual editions, there are some things that we would like to do that are currently not possible with virtual machines."
"The solution is scalable."
"This is a very expensive solution."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"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 more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users."
"Initial setup is tricky, if you do not understand the design of this product."
"I would like there to be more device security. I would like the tool to support SSL links, along with SSL and TLS."
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.