We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF 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."There is no need to worry about updating signatures because WAF will automatically update the signatures for you."
"F5 Advanced WAF helps our engineers to learn the complete configuration, including fundamental and advanced policies."
"One of the most valuable features is the Local Traffic Manager."
"F5's user-friendly interface and seamless integration stand out as the most valuable features for us."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features."
"Customers find the load balancer feature as the most valuable."
"F5 BIG-IP is used with good applications and functions as an application firewall with additional features. We will not use any feature or any service unless there is a business case and there is a need for implementation."
"The detail that you have available when setting up iRules."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is it helps our delivery team to make policies and rules for application."
"It integrates with AWS WAF, which makes it easy to deploy without changes to your infrastructure."
"Tech support has been very quick to respond to all of the needs that we've had. If you want ad-hoc support. They also provide professional services that you can purchase as well."
"The F5 interface is easy to use."
"Valuable features include Link Controller and Server Load Balancer."
"The web application firewall feature is the most valuable and useful feature. It is a leading industry product when it comes to load balancing. Its user interface is very simple. There isn't a steep learning curve. When we initiate someone to F5, they start using it quickly."
"The solution should include protection against web page attacks like what is available in FortiWeb."
"The administrator's user interface and some of the settings can sometimes be very complicated to understand."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees."
"They should work on the virtualization of NGINX."
"Nevertheless, F5 products are generally considered to be hard to deploy."
"The reporting portion of F5 Advance WAF is not great. They need to work out something better, as it is very basic. You only see the top IPs, I think there is more they can offer."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
"Reporting could be improved and configuration made easier."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"I think the logging could be improved."
"Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive."
"We would like to have integration into encryption and PKI integration with SafeNet. That is probably the key component in using External PKIs, letting people bring their PKIs with them."
"It's a very expensive solution."
"BIG-IP LTM is taking a long time to mature in cloud environments. They plan to improve cloud integration in the next version, but it isn't out yet. It's essential because more companies are moving to the cloud these days and using things like Kubernetes or microservices. F5 needs to improve in that direction, and they are."
"The solution could improve the documentation."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". 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". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Avi Networks Software Load Balancer. See our F5 Advanced WAF 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.
