We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Fortinet FortiADC based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"We have two appliances and I'm able to move my application from one appliance to another. I don't have to move my whole A10 to be active on the other side or to be passive on the other side. If an application is having a problem, I can just move it using a command."
"It is very useful to have a simple dashboard where you can login and look into what your traffic patterns are, then look and see what times of day you're experiencing the heaviest traffic. You can quickly identify if you are possibly having a security issue or security breach. It makes it very easy to use the box."
"The Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) is simple to use."
"The most valuable features in A10 Networks Thunder ADC are the ease of configuration, user-friendliness, and simplicity to sell to customers."
"The SLB and GSLB load balancing are the most valuable features. They meet our need to do server-side load balancing and global site load balancing so we can distribute traffic, not only intra-data center, but inter-data center."
"It helps with the efficiency of application deployments and data security."
"It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"Content caching and content compression are good features."
"The solution provides high-level services such as availability, redundancy, and load balancing between servers."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"The GSLB, the DR side, is the best part. Because we had our main side in one city, we created another, and we had a complete MPLS over the internet. We used the GSLB and data loss for our business applications."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"The solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good."
"When it comes to support, there is always room for improvement. First call resolution is not always there for urgent issues. The first call resolution is something that could be improved upon."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"The solution should add automation features in the next release."
"The tool's load-balancing feature should improve."
"We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers."
"Currently, the solution's WAF features are fewer. They should consider increasing their WAF features."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"Technical support and documentation could both be improved."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
"The product’s price could be reduced. Also, some of its features need to be more advanced."
"The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster, Radware Alteon and NGINX Plus, whereas Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster and Loadbalancer.org. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. Fortinet FortiADC report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
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.