We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Reblaze 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."It can scale."
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the balancer and you can change policies very easily."
"The most valuable features of the F5 Advanced WAF are the enhanced ASM and the performance. Additionally, the usability and effectiveness are very good."
"F5 Advanced WAF has very good stability and scalability. Its initial setup was straightforward."
"The best solution for WAF."
"The most valuable feature is that it is secure."
"It is also quite intuitive and user-friendly. They have several webinars that are actually like labs. You can use these webinars to learn about how to use all features of the product."
"The real-time monitoring and reporting are very good. There are information updates in their portal every two minutes. They also have the ability to spill it into Sumo Logic, for example. It's very easy to use."
"The most valuable features were the real-time monitoring and the management. With this kind of product, you need a very good management system to allow you to see false positives in real-time; to see what's happening in real-time... The clarity stood out. It was very visible and very easy to navigate; very easy to find the data we were looking for."
"Provides mobile app security."
"The feature I find most valuable is the user-friendly dashboard. It is easy to understand how everything works and it allows you to make decisions quickly and efficiently."
"I very much like the elastic search and reports, allowing us to have a 360-degree view of the customer's activities and enabling us to track down any suspicious bots."
"Reblaze knows how to manage security. For me as, someone who knows little about security, it's good that I have a firm that optimizes everything according to their standards. It's their responsibility and they are fully hands-on."
"We like the website protection. It's really good. The dashboard is really simple to use."
"It is a highly resilient product that can handle significantly larger workloads and high volumes of traffic with ease."
"I would like for there to be a cloud-based solution, this would also help to improve scalability."
"The tool needs to improve its pricing."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve on its funding for WAF features. There is a need to be more advanced WAF features."
"I would like to see additional controls."
"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."
"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."
"There is a learning curve that extends the time of implementation."
"Its price should be better. It is expensive."
"We have multiple products behind different instances of Reblaze. We have one instance for staging and then we have a production instance for multiple products. One of the things that we have requested is a unified view panel, so that we can see each of the instances in a unified view. That way, we won't have to go bouncing from instance to instance."
"The WAF features are not as granular as we would expect from a WAF system. There should be more granularity and in-depth rules, out-of-the-box."
"Some of the settings on the dashboard are confusing."
"Up to now the only cons I could find is sometimes getting change management back on track, because it's a company that evolves, and sometimes I don't have the same needs that they have. But besides that, up until now, I am really pleased with their service and I've also recommended them to some of my clients."
"They have an interface that you have to adjust to. That is a bit of a downfall because I expect an interface to be very intuitive for someone who knows little about security. But if you know about security, the interface is wonderful."
"It would be beneficial if it had a workflow or a feature that could fine-tune settings based on high-level requirements."
"I would like to have seen more automated reports. Maybe it has been improved in the last year and I'm just not aware of it. But from a managerial point of view, you want a summary report, a weekly report: How many attacks were blocked? How much bandwidth was saved due to the caching mechanism? What were the top-ten attacks that were tested on the network, etc? I could most likely have found all that data if I logged in to the system and ran different reports. It would be very helpful to get a management report on a weekly basis."
"There is room for improvement in helping us understanding session management... We want Reblaze to catch and identify everything. We want to see the various devices doing one activity and to see, in a timeline, what's happened. We would like to see a more human-readable display to understand what's happening in the web app."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Reblaze is ranked 23rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Reblaze is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Reblaze writes "Offers flexibility with a kill switch for bypassing Reblaze if needed and provides a reliable Layer 7 defense against attacks". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), whereas Reblaze is most compared with Cloudflare, Imperva DDoS, Radware Alteon and AWS WAF. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Reblaze report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
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.