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."Very easy to implement and works well."
"I like them because I like the security solution. They get extra marks compared to other solutions or competitors. There are more features than any other product I can think of. They're always monitoring, and the security features offer more than other, lesser products."
"I like the security features, especially against SQL injection."
"F5 Advanced WAF secures our connectivity and combines both the main functions of WAF (balancing and web application security)."
"The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to have a pool of resources that can distribute your traffic, and that is a plus for me. My company tried to look into a competitor, Imperva, but it was lacking that capability, so F5 Advanced WAF outperforms Imperva."
"F5 Advanced WAF helps our engineers to learn the complete configuration, including fundamental and advanced policies."
"In terms of F5 Advanced WAF's most valuable features, I would definitely say its stability. F5 is one the most stable products. Either as the load balancer or the web application firewall, it is very stable."
"This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most."
"It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"The solution is easy to install. It's a straightforward process."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"We plan to create packages of services from which it will be possible to build comprehensive tailor-made solutions."
"The most valuable feature is being able to manipulate the iRules, so you can send traffic to different avenues."
"You can create multiple virtual servers on F5 BIG-IP technology, and within multiple virtual servers you can have multiple nodes, where a node equals two application servers."
"There should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable."
"The BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"The accuracy of the automatic learning feature needs improvement."
"People who want to work with the device have to be pro in Linux"
"They could provide better pricing."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"F5 Advanced WAF needs better integration within the application, like remote dashboards."
"A more intuitive interface would be helpful."
"It's a very expensive solution."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"In terms of pricing, it could be more competitive."
"The price for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very high. This aspect could be improved."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."
"We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature."
"Needs to provide a visual interface to follow a customer's activity (from client to BIG-IP to SNAT IP to the chosen server, then back). Today, we are still performing packet captures."
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 "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". 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.
