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."Our users find the interface very comfortable to use."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN is a stable solution."
"It is stable most of the time."
"The solution is easy to install, centrally managed, and stable, with good technical support and a straightforward setup."
"The tool is easy to configure and use. We integrated it with Active Directory to manage user authentication. It's intuitive and transparent, making it simple for users to use. It connects automatically to the VPN whenever users turn on the laptop. The product is efficient and offers centralized control."
"The team has full visibility of the users that connect allowing them to keep control of who is in the network and what data they are allowing to come in and out."
"Thanks to all these security processes, our users can access our infrastructure with the certainty that we will not be compromised."
"It operates effectively, particularly during challenges like adversities or infrastructure issues."
"BIG-IP can do anything. It's like a Swiss Army knife."
"Our experience has been very good, in terms of performance, and securing our application infrastructure."
"Traffic Learning is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is IP Intelligence."
"We are fond of the load balancing feature for DNS and servers."
"It integrates with AWS WAF, which makes it easy to deploy without changes to your infrastructure."
"It is a fast and available solution."
"The detail that you have available when setting up iRules."
"In my organization, there aren't Linux users, however, I know it has difficulties offering secure access for customers who use this operating system."
"The main area for improvement is pricing. Another area could be integrating MFA authentication directly into the solution instead of using separate benchmark tools for implementation."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN handles up to a hundred megabytes for clients, but I want it to be able to handle up to one gigabyte."
"When you want to deploy a new Check Point agent, it is really a pain in the butt. For example, Windows 10 now has updates almost every couple of months. It changes the versioning and things under the hood. These are things that I don't understand, because I'm not a Windows person. However, I know that the Check Point client is installed on the Windows machine, and if the Check Point client's not kept up-to-date, then it's functionality breaks. It has to be up-to-date with the Windows versions. Check Point has to update the client more often. Now, the problem is that the Check Point client is not easy to update on remote computers and it's not easy to deploy a new client."
"When you need to create something, you have to follow many steps and I think that should be simplified."
"The main feature that would be improved within Check Point Remote Access is its operation within Linux OS, as it currently does not have many features for that OS."
"This is the best version we are using, however, if some changes can be made in the next release, I'd like to see adjustments to the time period and internet connectivity."
"Check Point Remote Access VPN's current configuration has some limitations and issues. One major drawback is the inability to configure multiple gateways from the same management server for VPN access."
"A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function."
"Cloud native integration should be provided."
"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."
"The solution could improve the documentation."
"Right now, there are a lot of products within F5's portfolio. They acquired a couple of companies like NGINX and Volterra. Some features and technologies overlapped when this acquisition occurred. They need to refine it and come up with a single, proper solution. F5 should focus more on zero trust network access (ZTNA).They should be more focused on that framework because the industry is moving towards that. Everyone is talking about SASE and zero trust."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"Based on my experience using F5 and by only taking into consideration the last seven years, I have found that the reporting mechanism is bad."
"If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better."
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 5th in Remote Access with 62 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 "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Fortinet FortiClient, Check Point Harmony Mobile and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, 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 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.