Compare F5 Advanced WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 10 reviews while F5 BIG-IP is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 30 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 9.2, while F5 BIG-IP is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Provides load-balancing and security for our enterprise-level clients". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP writes "It could be hard to scale because we will be encrypting and decrypting. The connection through the API Gateway worked in no time, which was fantastic". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Citrix NetScaler AppFirewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas F5 BIG-IP is most compared with Citrix NetScaler ADC, HAProxy and NGINX Plus. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP report.
Most Helpful Review | |||
| |||
 Find out what your peers are saying about F5 Advanced WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP and other solutions. Updated: March 2020. 405,734 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
This solution is an enterprise-class firewall that provides both load-balancing and security. The anti-bot protection is the solution's most valuable feature. Safe-guard or credential staffing are also useful features. This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most. The solution isn't too expensive. The license allows you to license what you need and leave out what you don't need. I definitely recommend this solution because of the time you save on analysis. The best solution for WAF. With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform. The most valuable feature is artificial intelligence and to get extra internal access. | F5 BIG-IP is used with good applications and functions as an application firewall with additional features. We will not use any feature or any service unless there is a business case and there is a need for implementation. We're able to do load balancing and global load balancing. When you marry those two products together, you can do a lot more. We're able to deliver our applications more securely and faster. It has improved our deliverability where we have more service across the shared data centers. We can intelligently reach all of those client connections across all of the servers and do it fairly quickly. It has helped improve our application delivery and performance. It is a fast and available solution. It is the perfect solution when you have high workloads in your IT environment. It integrates with AWS WAF, which makes it easy to deploy without changes to your infrastructure. It improves the overall performance of applications by decreasing the burden on servers associated with managing and maintaining applications and network sessions, as well as by performing application-specific tasks. Initial setup is easy and pretty standard. It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature. |
Cons | |
This solution can be made more user-friendly. The solution's dashboard could be improved. When you're moving from policy to policy, the logs and the integration of the logs in other systems aren't straightforward. I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF. The solution is tedious. It takes a lot of discrete settings so one needs to get detailed and granular when they use the solution. It takes you a whole lot of energy and concentration to configure. It needs to be much more straight-forward, like other web solutions. One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy. I think the deployment templates can be better. F5 Advanced WAF needs better integration within the application, like remote dashboards. The administrator's user interface and some of the settings can sometimes be very complicated to understand. | The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us. The license terms for "non-commercial" will are challenging for us. There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues not affecting production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. An ordeal for the manager. I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup. I would like them to have more flexible models. Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery. Needs to provide a visual interface to follow a customer's activity (from client to BIG-IP to SNAT IP to the chosen server, then back). Today, we are still performing packet captures. We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
Licensing fees for this solution are paid on a yearly basis. After buying the program, you just pay for the support every year. I think the price is very high. The pricing is too high. | They are expensive. We purchased through the AWS Marketplace because it was a popular way to go, and we were intrigued. The price of this product is not an issue. They have good pricing and licensing. Unless the price difference is large, this is not the primary concern for the product. The performance and product-related issues (secure for VPN, multi-function for network device, etc.) are the keys. I would recommend that the cost be lowered. If you are planning to use security features, better to go for strong hardware and the best bundle license, which is great for web security. The price is high. We have found the pricing and licensing on AWS to be competitive. Purchasing through the AWS Marketplace was good. We chose to go through the AWS Marketplace because everything that we needed was a soft appliance. We needed something to work in Amazon, and this product was available there. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs. 405,734 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 772 Comparisons 480 Reviews 9 Average Words per Review 441 Avg. Rating 9.1 | Views 42,174 Comparisons 32,962 Reviews 28 Average Words per Review 405 Avg. Rating 7.9 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 76% of the time.  Compared 9% of the time.  Compared 9% of the time. | Compared 15% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time.  Compared 7% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP | |
Learn | |
| F5 | F5 |
Overview | |
At F5, we give our customers the freedom to securely deliver every app, anywhere—with confidence. All F5 products are highly programmable and integrate into any environment, whether on premises or in any cloud. To date, 48 of the Fortune 50 companies rely on F5 to deliver apps that customers and employees can securely access at any time, on any device, from any location. | The BIG-IP family of products offers the application intelligence that network managers need to ensure applications are fast, secure, and available. All BIG-IP products share a common underlying architecture, F5's Traffic Management Operating System (TMOS), which provides unified intelligence, flexibility, and programmability. Together, BIG-IP's powerful platforms, advanced modules, and centralized management system make up the most comprehensive set of application delivery tools in the industry. |
Offer | |
Learn more about F5 Advanced WAF | Learn more about F5 BIG-IP |
Sample Customers | |
| MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank | Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc. |
Top Industries | |
Software R&D Company26% Comms Service Provider14% K 12 Educational Company Or School11% Energy/Utilities Company9% | Financial Services Firm24% Comms Service Provider24% Manufacturing Company10% Healthcare Company10% Software R&D Company30% Comms Service Provider18% Financial Services Firm8% Government6% |
Company Size | |
Small Business44% Midsize Enterprise33% Large Enterprise22% | Small Business26% Midsize Enterprise13% Large Enterprise62% Small Business30% Midsize Enterprise26% Large Enterprise44% |
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 Advanced WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
405,734 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also F5 Advanced WAF Reviews, F5 BIG-IP Reviews, and our list of Best Web Application Firewall (WAF) Companies.
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.