"Identification, ease of use, and ease of modifying it to most of our needs are valuable."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the easy identification of events and customization. We can pinpoint our settings."
"F5 Advanced WAF is a stable solution, we are satisfied. It is more stable than ForiWeb."
"Feature-wise, they are always cutting edge and up-to-date. Many features aren't available via competitors. There's always a lot of enhanced critical features that just aren't available through anyone else, or, if they are, are too lightweight."
"We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country. It has a replication feature. Licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license."
"I like all of the features, but the main one is the attack signatures."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."
"It's scalable and very easy to manage."
"A user-friendly and reasonably priced solution."
"The product offers high availability."
"There should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable."
"The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve on its funding for WAF features. There is a need to be more advanced WAF features."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"We usually use a third-party tool for logging and reporting. It would be nice if we could do that right on this solution. They have one, but it's not very stable. Logging and reporting effectively would be a big enhancement."
"I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database."
"The pricing could be more flexible."
"Scalability should be based on customer requirements."
"You need to have pretty good internal knowledge of the solution."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 6th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 22 reviews while Radware AppWall is ranked 19th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 2 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.2, while Radware AppWall is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "It is very stable as as a load balancer or a web application firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware AppWall writes "Stable with high availability and good dashboards". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Imperva Web Application Firewall, NGINX App Protect and Cloudflare, whereas Radware AppWall is most compared with AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiWeb and Akamai Kona Site Defender. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Radware AppWall report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
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.
