We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and Forescout Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Our customers have never complained about the stability"
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"This is a product that is easy to install and integrate, and it is simple to use."
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"Stickiness is the most valuable feature of the product."
"The portal access was very good."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"We have seen a return on investment from F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager. It provided access at a time when we didn't have it."
"We really like that we get full visibility of devices in the local network."
"The most valuable features of the Forescout Platform are ease of management and outstanding visibility. The visibility is simple to obtain."
"The most valuable feature of Forescout Platform is that it has everything that Aruba has at significantly less cost."
"The user management has been very easy for the most part."
"The most valuable features are remote access and administration scripts."
"Forescout Platform has granular features and one of the most impressive features is the agentless feature."
"The most valuable features of ForeScout is the fact that it can do network access control either with 802.1x or without 802.1x."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment, which does not require the use of an agent."
"Cloud services are something that F5 Access Policy Manager could do better"
"In my opinion, the GUI side needs some improvement based on my usage. Sometimes, it doesn't work as efficiently as the CLI side."
"I'd suggest improved documentation integration directly within the GUI. Right now, finding comprehensive documentation often requires going to external websites like the community portal."
"The solution is quite costly."
"We do not have knowledgeable support teams locally."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The price of this product can be improved."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"If older network devices are used there can be some compatibility issues while using the Forescout Platform. Additionally, if the switches that are deployed in your infrastructure are not captured properly to the endpoints there might be some difficulties with Forescout Platform trying to monitor the network traffic. Traffic management is an area the vendor should work on."
"Forescout Platform could improve the costs of integrations."
"The product needs to improve its support. I know a case that dragged on for about one and a half years. They eventually suggested professional services and closed the ticket. We followed their advice, engaging the account manager and professional service team, only to discover that the issue was a bug. After reopening the case, it's been about six months, and the problem still hasn't been resolved."
"The initial setup was complex."
"More detailed analysis during the authentication process, especially for troubleshooting access issues. We have found that troubleshooting RADIUS controls is quite arduous, as it is today. A trace function could easily resolve this by providing a means by which access issues from a certificate to passwords or accounts could easily be identified and remediated."
"Forescout needs to improve its cloud management and remote connectivity."
"The ability to block external devices in Mac is lacking and needs to be added."
"When adding what is in scope to a policy, it would be nice if you could select multiple policies instead of one policy at a time to add what is in the scope for network segmentation. I have found that during the install and configuration of the policies that if you want to modify multiple policies or enable multiple policies that you need to define what is in the scope (IP range or segments) one rule at a time. This caused some slow downs when implementing policies."
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 7th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews while Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2, while Forescout Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) writes " Facilitates packet inspection, modification, and offloading and offers visibility and troubleshooting capabilities, allowing for pre-production server testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is most compared with Citrix Gateway, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ivanti Connect Secure, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, whereas Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Armis. See our F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. Forescout Platform report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.