We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story
2017-09-07T08:38:00Z

What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?

15

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

ITCS user
Guest
4747 Answers

author avatar
Top 5Real User

In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version.

2021-08-23T11:20:00Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

The pricing of the product is a bit too high. They should work to make it more affordable. It needs to be more cost-efficient.

2021-08-06T15:38:55Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive. It would be ideal if they offered integration with NGINX. They purchased NGINX as well. Therefore, if it's got integration with NGINX, then you kind of have one single pane of a console for all the F5/NGINX portions of your work.

2021-06-11T15:09:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved.

2021-05-17T13:14:24Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy.

2021-03-31T08:55:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Reseller

I can't say that there are any features missing. I've overall been quite happy with it. We once had an issue related to trying to publish some exchange application to a file and we experienced some problems there, however, the incident was not really related to BIG-IP. It was likely some kind of infrastructure problem the company was experiencing. We haven't had any big problems of note. Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future. The pricing could be more reasonable.

2021-02-17T14:19:42Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

We use a limited amount of features so the biggest issue for us is the price. For what we're using, it's an expensive solution.

2021-02-10T08:14:32Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReseller

Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive.

2021-01-24T08:38:46Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

We are currently using BIG-IP and NetScaler and we wanted to have just one technology. We will be replacing F5 in March. NetScaler is primarily used for Citrix purposes and BIG-IP is being used as a reverse proxy for our other applications. We would like to manage it easily with one technology. I would like to see better integration. I can remember when we were implementing ADFS, we had some challenges. There is not a lot of documentation available where you can refer to and configure any new technologies.

2020-12-29T15:57:30Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

There are some aspects of F5 BIG-IP that could be improved, the main one being virtual machine support. We have seen that even with the virtual editions, there are some things that we would like to do that are currently not possible with virtual machines. We have seen some problems mainly with F5 BIG-IP ASM, and so I think the virtual editions of the ASM could be improved. Another negative aspect is the cost, as it can be expensive.

2020-12-24T07:37:29Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking.

2020-12-16T16:15:24Z
author avatar
Top 20Reseller

I'd like to see a more intuitive interface. The market now is moving into salvage services, different kinds of services, not only hardware solutions.

2020-12-10T03:12:56Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would like to see some better documentation focused on our website and better search criteria. That's probably the best way to say that there needs to help with research. The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable.

2020-12-04T23:51:22Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

When we purchased the product, we found it to be a bit expensive. If we decide to migrate to the cloud, I don't think that BIG-IP is a good solution and we probably won't use it. If the price for a cloud-based deployment can be matched with their competitors the I think it would be a far better solution.

2020-12-04T12:31:02Z
author avatar
Top 20Reseller

When you create an autofile, its profile takes a long time to generate the view in the VIP. That is probably due to the performance of the device, however, when you load a specific profile, the browser takes more than one minute to show the information. The web interface could be better. The solution should allow for the creation of custom signatures. Right now, I see that can be a little bit complicated to create new or personal signatures in the VIP. The way that policies are created should make it easier to maintain the solution. The product needs to implement some kind of artificial intelligence or machine learning that can start to generate fewer false positive requests. We tend to have a lot of false positives. The policy should be created in such a way as to help lower false positives. There should be better reporting. Our customers ask us for reports quite often. It would be ideal if the solution itself was able to generate various types of reports for them instead.

2020-11-18T22:22:57Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

There should be more logging improvements on F5. The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening. For example, the web application firewall logs don't say complete, or why this is blocked, which signature or which root cause is blocking the log. Also, it can provide more understandable windows or dashboards regarding the latency of the application. Citrix has cheap tools that show what is happening and describe why did they happen. I would like to see improvements to the dashboard, latency reporting, and monitoring. Improvements in these areas would be very valuable.

2020-11-11T08:06:52Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

The reporting could be improved and I'd also like to see the UI adjusted to make configuration easier. There are some things in the F5 configuration that are complicated.

2020-07-16T06:21:12Z
author avatar
Top 20MSP

More training should be available to customers. There is a guide that is available on the internet, but the training is not as good as others, such as Cisco. While F5 does have a big market share, it is not easy to find a well-training F5 engineer. If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better.

2020-07-05T15:50:30Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

The policies management could be improved, that's why I'm doing a comparison of other solutions. This is also a very expensive solution. I'd like to see external loading included as part of the solution.

2020-06-15T07:34:14Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

This solution could be improved by reducing the cost. It's the main reason that we're considering another option for our website even though we're very satisfied with the way the Big-IP works and the way Big-IP protects our environment, but it's very expensive. We are keen to find out if there is a similar system for technology that would suit us and cost less.

2020-06-15T07:33:53Z
author avatar
Real User

The license terms for "non-commercial" are challenging for us.

2019-04-14T01:50:00Z
author avatar
Reseller

I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup. They need to have features that you can turn on and spin up and not have to buy a license for. I'd want to be able to quickly spin up a feature and start using it and then come back and pay for it later. Citrix has them beat on that.

2019-04-02T07:02:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The products are great and easy to upgrade from time to time to improve functionality. F5 BIG-IP is working fine. We use it more in production and operations. There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues, not big ones. This does not affect production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. Related to the groups, when it comes to cost, rates are regulated. When the market is not good, then we will consider doing the increase. In general, there are more features that could be provided with F5 BIG-IP if it were not so costly. From application to application to customer respects, you can't always customize software based on customer requirements. If you don't consider that, you can't deliver.

2019-03-31T09:41:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Services to be improved: * Multi-cloud consistency, like to simplify administration with centralized policies with multi-cloud vendors * F5 lateral scalability within the container is still restricted. * Web application firewalls and service mesh would be a nice-to-have feature. * Drive programmable application with 100% restful API * Cover deployment * Monitoring * Policy-based control.

2019-02-18T17:50:00Z
author avatar
Consultant

They have to scale, developing more products. I would like them to have more flexible models.

2019-01-14T13:16:00Z
author avatar
Real User

We would like to have integration into encryption and PKI integration with SafeNet. That is probably the key component in using External PKIs, letting people bring their PKIs with them. On the back-end, we have a SafeNet component. They are going to bring additional features in, so allowing integration with encryption and PKI, and tying it back into Microsoft AD in the back with an LDAP lookup for users.

2018-12-11T08:31:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The auto logout feature after three minutes is terrible. I wish they would make that longer, since it is not a feature that we can change.

2018-12-11T08:31:00Z
author avatar
Real User

They could improve the product's ease of use. There has been a bit of complication on some things from the admin side. There is some confusion how to operate it.

2018-12-11T08:31:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Certificate management needs improvement. I would like automated deployment of new certificates without manual intervention to be in the next release of this product.

2018-12-11T08:31:00Z
author avatar
Real User

We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature.

2018-12-11T08:31:00Z
author avatar
Real User

* Cloud native integration should be provided. * Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing.

2018-12-11T08:30:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The management process seems a bit difficult. The management interface is unclear, complex, and not concise. I would like a better user interface. For integration with other AWS environments, we do some tie-ins with some autoscaling groups. This has been challenging for us. We have had issues, where when autoscaling groups scale up, there are some instances which are not showing up in the proper size. Then, those IPs would get registered with F5, but never get released. Therefore, we are ending up with a whole bunch of ghosted IPs. However, this is more an implementation detail than an F5 detail.

2018-12-09T08:34:00Z
author avatar
Real User

People love them in security, but their costs are completely out of bounds. However, I'm not a security guy, so I don't necessarily know all the ins and outs of why our security team may have chosen this product versus other ones. I am disappointed with the additional cost. 25 megabytes is low. If we get to a thousand, a gig, It is like three dollars an hour. While you can get a reduction in price, when I price them against anyone else, they are wildly overpriced. I used GitHub for autoscaling CloudFormation, and I found two bugs and I submitted them. Their implementation in GitHub could be cleaner and allow for a bit more customization. We always end up customizing these things, so I found two bugs and I thought they were big bugs so I was surprised. This wasn't necessarily relative to product. It was more about the support role of GitHub and the way it was launching. However, the features that they said would work, did not.

2018-12-05T07:52:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome.

2018-12-04T07:57:00Z
author avatar
Real User

They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities.

2018-08-05T06:48:00Z
author avatar
Reseller

The pricing could be improved.

2018-08-02T11:48:00Z
author avatar
Real User

We need best-practice information. They have something called DevCentral and a blog. But we want something from F5 itself regarding how to tackle the false-positive configurations. If you go into detail with so many configurations it will find so many false positives from the moment it is enabled that it will quickly impact your applications, and it will not work.

2018-08-02T11:48:00Z
author avatar
Real User

F5 should improve or develop the reporting tools further. They should improve the management policies on the BOX.

2018-08-02T11:48:00Z
author avatar
Consultant

In future, I would like there to be more device security. I would like the tool to support SSL links, along with SSL and TLS. It also needs to disable the old cipher suite, which is a very old. There are ciphers, like D5, still available on the device.

2018-08-02T11:48:00Z
author avatar
Vendor

Logging is a bit of a problem. Logging and monitoring are only in plain text. You have to search and you have to know what you are searching for to find anything. So of course, monitoring and getting alerts for abnormal situations is hard. There are no tools for monitoring and alerts. If you have problems and you need to diagnose them, you really have to know what you're looking for in order to find it. Logging and monitoring could be something out-of-the-box that are more accessible.

2018-07-30T06:35:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I would like to see F-5 implement a regular routing like in other Linux-based devices. We know the F-5 is not a router, but can be used for traffic forwarding, so it's not the same as other devices if we compare it with Citrix-based devices. It is a simple Linux-based routing software. I don't have any problems with it. However, in F-5, when we try and integrate in some complex networks, we have to use some additional routing scenarios from a Layer 3 perspective, then we have some problems. It would be great if this were fixed somehow. We have to keep in mind features when we deploy an F-5 solution. Designing the same approach in Citrix can often be simpler. I have written syntax in F-5 which were complicated; not straightforward. For example, in a Citrix device, we have a lot of predefined patterns, and it's much simpler to implement.

2018-07-30T06:35:00Z
author avatar
User

Internet and cloud support could be improved. Security enhancement should be more user friendly.

2018-07-05T02:00:00Z
author avatar
User

It would help to get more training, even better in local languages. While we are able to speak and understand English, sometimes it is much easier to use the language you truly understand.

2018-05-18T06:14:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I would recommend that the cost be lowered. User tracking: 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.

2018-04-23T08:11:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Performance is the first thing and most critical issue that needs improvement. Supporting more Clients would be nice, but without improving performance, F5 will not widely be used for critical work. It killed an international meeting the first time that we used BIG-IP VPN.

2018-03-05T03:45:00Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

The room for improvement is that the product is a little costly. I live in the Third World, Pakistan. We have budget constraints, even in big enterprise servers. My team said that this product is too costly, and why don't we go with another product, we should do a comparative analysis with Citrix and F5. I told them that is costly, but it has rich features, the support is good, the features are reliable, and the technical assistance center, the tech support, is almost perfect. Still, I would say they need to cut their prices for countries or regions that we live in. The one gap I saw was that pure LBN integration is a little tricky. The insertion of F5 in LBN is a little tricky. They need to work on something, on products by which they can insert F5 in any sort of cloud environment. These are not really big things. They are continuously improving. They are improving day by day, and they are the number-one load balancer.

2018-02-06T07:39:00Z
author avatar
Reseller

Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added. This project is missing some relevant features: * We set up the customer through the load balancer. * Then once it is there and functional, then the next step is to add the web application firewall on the same boxes.

2017-09-07T08:38:00Z
Learn what your peers think about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2021.
540,984 professionals have used our research since 2012.