We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Perimeter 81 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium."
"The most helpful thing is that it's open-source. It's very easy to program and customize."
"I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"Our experience has been very good, in terms of performance, and securing our application infrastructure."
"Initial setup was straightforward. We were up and running in three hours."
"The detail that you have available when setting up iRules."
"The product is quite flexible."
"It keeps us all accountable and ensures secure internet connections while we all work remotely."
"The feature that I have found to be most valuable is the reputation that the company has regarding privacy. Nowadays, this is critical, especially when you do all of your work online."
"Scaling Perimeter 81 was easy to do."
"Logging back into Perimeter 81 is relatively user-friendly as I just need to re-type my Windows credentials in to access the VPN."
"The benefits are really built into the underlying protocol, however, Perimeter81 makes these available in a user-friendly way."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"Our operators can work from home without any problems."
"Perimeter 81 provides a very secure and non-disruptive experience."
"There are not very many areas for improvement, but the price is high."
"There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions."
"It would be good to have better traffic and better data. It would be nice to have more granularity to see packets in terms of the header details, the analytics, etc. It would be nice if that was also part of it and to have analytics added to the traffic."
"The UI could be improved."
"We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature."
"The solution's initial setup process was quite complex. I"
"There is a challenge in Pakistan. This is when there is a hardware failure. Sometimes, it takes more time to get a replacement because it is sent out from the U.S. or some other regional outpost. Thus, it takes two to three days to receive a replacement."
"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."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"What would be useful would be a notification/warning that a session is due to timeout after exceeding the default connection limit."
"It would be nice to have a notification sound when Perimeter81 disconnects, as I sometimes don't notice when the icon shows that it's disconnected, and I end up wasting time waiting for my browser to load a page that shows an error, usually error 404."
"The platform still lacks relevant dashboards and the ability to customize them based on our needs."
"Offering in-app explanations detailing what each feature does, its benefits and potential use cases can help users better understand and utilize the tool to its full potential."
"I'd love to learn more about all of the features. Maybe a monthly spotlight of features or having a banner that explains more ways certain features could be used would be helpful."
"One of the more negative experiences using Perimeter 81 is the fact that I am logged off after a pre-determined amount of time which cuts off access to some of my company's resources."
"One of our challenges is ensuring the security of our cloud-based operations."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 5th in ZTNA as a Service with 22 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". 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, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Tailscale.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
