We performed a comparison between Citrix Web App and API Protection and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like the solution's simplicity compared to Citrix's on-prem solutions."
"The web application firewall which protects our services on the internet, and then of course services like our ability to provide high availability for the services we are offering are the most valuable features."
"We have good customer support."
"The stability is good. If there is a problem, the load will be shifted to other sites automatically, which has been a good experience for us."
"I prefer this solution because of its user-friendly interface. I find it simple and close to what I am currently using, which is Citrix Fortiva Access for Multi-Factor Authentication. I appreciate the familiar user interface and troubleshooting tools it offers."
"The advantage of Citrix Web App and API Protection is just its graphic user interface for beginners. The solution is nothing special, but we have to use it for the corporation. Another advantage of Citrix Web App and API Protection is that we have our copy to test things and get the know-how of it."
"The work balancing applications are the most valuable feature."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The F5 interface is easy to use."
"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."
"The stability is excellent."
"F5's attack signatures and automation are the most valuable features. The disaster recovery capabilities are also excellent. You don't need to do anything. It has automatic failover from production."
"We're able to do load balancing and global load balancing. When you marry those two products together, you can do a lot more. We're able to deliver our applications more securely and faster. It has improved our deliverability where we have more service across the shared data centers. We can intelligently reach all of those client connections across all of the servers and do it fairly quickly. It has helped improve our application delivery and performance."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"There is a lot of documentation available."
"Initial setup is easy and pretty standard."
"An area for improvement in Citrix Web App and API Protection is for it to give real-time notifications and alerts. It would be practical if the solution warns you if there's an attack or if the load or traffic volume increases or decreases. An additional feature I'd like to see in Citrix Web App and API Protection is a prediction or artificial intelligence on what is happening, for example, attacks."
"The reporting is not so good. They don't have an application to connect the logs."
"Security could be improved because then I can get rid of my Cisco firewalls. If they improve the security then I could run my security, my proxy, my firewalling and my SDN solution on one device instead of having to have multiple devices."
"Their upgrades are not very backward compatible, and sometimes they mess up."
"The user interface could be more friendly. Some wizards and other documentation for administrators, as well as some use cases, helps us to understand the solution."
"Citrix Web App and API Protection could improve in the area of licensing"
"I am not an expert in this solution, but simplicity and user-friendly interfaces are crucial for me. I would appreciate advice from Citrix, particularly in the form of an interactive guide for API protection. It would be helpful if they could provide specific points and recommendations for cybersecurity, indicating areas that need attention or improvement. I find such interactive guidance valuable."
"The solution's pricing is a big concern and should be improved."
"LTM would be improved with the inclusion of signature-based blocking."
"The UI could be improved."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"The solution is scalable."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"The management interface is unclear, complex, and not concise. I would like a better user interface."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
More Citrix Web App and API Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix Web App and API Protection is ranked 20th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Citrix Web App and API Protection is rated 8.0, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Web App and API Protection writes "Has a good graphic user interface for beginners, but lacks real-time notifications, alerts, and artificial intelligence". 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". Citrix Web App and API Protection is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiWeb, Azure Front Door, AWS WAF and Akamai App and API Protector, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Citrix Web App and API Protection vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.