In terms of A10's security features, the web application firewall handles the top 10 OWASP use cases. But the ATM on the F5 is much more enhanced or comprehensive. For pure load balancing and the normal security features, both solutions are okay. They are easy to configure for simple setups.

We also evaluated F5 and Citrix NetScaler.

The pros of A10 versus F5 are ease of use, as well as cost. F5 is much more difficult to configure. One of the pros of F5 is that it has more granular configuration, meaning you could do a lot more with F5 than you could do with an A10. However, A10 was a better fit for our needs. One of the cons of F5 is the cost.

With NetScaler, one of the cons is the cost. One of its pros is functionality-wise, the feature sets are very rich. 

The pros of Citrix and F5 are that they are more widely deployed than A10. If I was trying to find other people, such as my peers who have worked on A10s, there will be a lot more people out there that have worked on Citrix or F5 opposed to A10. This is a con for A10. 

We also evaluated F5. 

Because we were new in the market, our decision was purely based on cost. A10 can deliver the throughput we need, so there wasn't a technical challenge. It ended up being a cost-based decision.

We evaluated five equipment options for our client and prices were very different. Technically, the options were comparable so we chose the solution because it was the least expensive. 

We evaluated F5 again, because it was time for a renewal. We evaluated Juniper — at the time they had a load balancing solution. We also evaluated Cisco.

We have not looked into any other options.

We looked at Kemp and there was another one, but it was about ten years ago. We went with A10 because of price and support.

I have evaluated Avi Networks.

F5.

We looked at A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs F5.