We performed a comparison between FortiCache [EOL] and Steelhead based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about HPE Aruba Networking, Cato Networks, Citrix and others in WAN Optimization."I like the traffic monitoring because it meets the firewall protocols."
"We think it's a good solution for cloud security, where one has hybrid cloud. They have different cloud solutions like a Office 365 or Azure or Amazon. This is a good solution to control all the different cloud solutions you have in your family of hybrid clouds, from one panel. This is what the main feature we look for."
"It has a nice graphic interface and it is easy to find information about effectively using the product because of the large user-base."
"I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication."
"It is very easy to install the solution."
"The most valuable feature of Steelhead is its optimization capabilities."
"SteelHead works from the application. I use it to optimize traffic from Amazon. It is mainly used for customers who need to increase the traffic to 33K. For other users, it has been more of an operation."
"TCP optimization... caches a particular TCP connection and the next time a user uses that connection he will reach the destination easily."
"The connectivity to speed is the valuable feature."
"The compression of Riverbed is very powerful. It can also handle large quantities of traffic."
"Steelhead is stable, and it can even help you avoid service interruption in the event of a power outage. If your hardware fails, technical support will replace your device quickly."
"It should be set up more specifically so that I only pay for what I want."
"Sometimes when using high availability, the second firewall does not come up immediately if the first one goes down."
"However, we would like them to add more integrations. We would appreciate a more open solution. They're quite good when you have the entire Fortinet ecosystem, but otherwise it's not as good of a solution."
"One area for improvement is related to monitoring and visibility."
"I would like to see improvement in the solution’s configuration and protocol aspects. We have got some configurations that are not set. I would also like to simplify the call detection of some protocols."
"Steelhead's handling of encrypted traffic could be improved because it requires some complex configuration to optimize encrypted traffic, especially when working with Microsoft protocols for mail servers and VPN services"
"The product should offer more integration capabilities."
"If we load a primary firewall, the secondary firewall usually handles all the active connections, but in Riverbed, this isn't the case. We lose all the active connections at the moment of failure."
"Application response time and network performance could be improved."
"They should include a network switch in a future release."
"The application response time of the solution can be improved."
Earn 20 points
FortiCache [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in WAN Optimization while Steelhead is ranked 4th in WAN Optimization with 22 reviews. FortiCache [EOL] is rated 7.4, while Steelhead is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of FortiCache [EOL] writes "Has high-availability for managing web caching, filtering and security through a user-friendly interface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Steelhead writes "Exceptionally stable and reliable but costly". FortiCache [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Steelhead is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform, WAAS, Citrix SD-WAN and Noction IRP.
See our list of best WAN Optimization vendors.
We monitor all WAN Optimization 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.
