We performed a comparison between Citrix Gateway and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Universal Access Gateways solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It adds great security to your outfacing information."
"The solution is scalable and can go from a very small deployment to handling 10,000 transactions a second."
"I didn't have any hiccups or issues with it."
"The solution is stable."
"We have users in a remote environment that might require to access the service."
"It is easy to set up and is stable. It is scalable as well, depending on the model."
"It performs quite well."
"The solution has very flexible configuration."
"The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system."
"iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good."
"I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution."
"The most valuable features are DNS, APM, and ASM. Additionally, it is easy to use and you have a lot of flexibility to use the solution within a network."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"One of the best features of the solution is the operating system."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) improves the resilience and quality of the application itself, the speed and the user experience for the application. The data that the users need from the application is actually acquired faster. So, it provides faster data acquisition."
"Citrix Gateway could improve the speed of the VPN. I sometimes have to wait for 10 to 15 minutes to get connected and other times when I am connected I have to abort, and reconnect."
"The solution has unnecessary limitations."
"As an organization, our initiative is to move to the cloud, Citrix Gateway needs to improve its cloud capabilities and make the cloud solution more robust."
"Sometimes the input-output has issues."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Lacks access through a mobile device."
"Their VAS product should be more productive because right now, we are using other VAS solutions but not using this one."
"When it comes to the VDA environment, making it additionally stable is important."
"My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey."
"The solution could improve the documentation."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager."
"Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive."
"BIG-IP LTM's sandboxing integration could be improved."
"A more intuitive interface would be helpful."
"The price for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very high. This aspect could be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix Gateway is ranked 1st in Universal Access Gateways with 11 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 46 reviews. Citrix Gateway is rated 8.0, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Gateway writes "Low maintenance, multiple pricing options, and easily scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Great support, helpful documentation, and is user-friendly". Citrix Gateway is most compared with Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Fortinet FortiClient, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Pulse Connect Secure and VMware Workspace ONE, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC and HAProxy. See our Citrix Gateway vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
We monitor all Universal Access Gateways 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.
