We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Symantec Web Application Firewall 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."LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"The feature I find the most valuable is the support infrastructure."
"BIG-IP LTM's most valuable feature is that it allows you to seamlessly add more servers without impacting your application's configuration."
"Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot."
"BIG-IP can do anything. It's like a Swiss Army knife."
"It offers features Kemp doesn't provide. For example, there are predefined templates for handling Office 365. You can download them for automatic configuration."
"Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule."
"The iRule feature is very useful for inspecting HTTP. Sometimes, we use it for modifying the headers of the HTTP."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The solution has an up-to-date data repository to deal with external threats."
"The setup was straightforward."
"The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization. It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models."
"To improve the product, they could add more load balancing solutions in Kubernetes."
"A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function."
"Bugs are the part of program and they are fixed with every release, as with any vendor."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"The GUI needs improvement."
"Sometimes scanning slows down the endpoints."
"I'm not convinced that it's necessary the best solution going forward in the future."
"It would be an improvement if the management dashboards were not reliant upon Java."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Symantec Web Application Firewall is ranked 37th in Web Application Firewall (WAF). F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Symantec Web Application Firewall is rated 8.4. 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 Symantec Web Application Firewall writes "An excellent up-to-date data repository handling external threats successfully". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy, whereas Symantec Web Application Firewall is most compared with WAPPLES. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Symantec Web Application Firewall report.
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.
