No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs Symantec Siteminder comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 11, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Man...
Ranking in Access Management
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (21st), Network Access Control (NAC) (11th), SSL VPN (6th), Remote Access (19th)
Symantec Siteminder
Ranking in Access Management
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (13th), Web Access Management (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is 2.4%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Siteminder is 3.4%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Symantec Siteminder3.4%
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM)2.4%
Other94.2%
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

Senior Cyber Security Consultant at KoçSistem
Has provided reliable policy controls and secure web access for large enterprises
I consider Cloudflare when evaluating centralized access control features; Cloudflare utilizes multi-factor authentication and full API support, while F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) needs to enhance its API support. I recommend F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) for large companies such as Tüpraş and Ford. Tüpraş is one of the biggest companies in Turkey, along with other customers such as Tofaş, Euroko, Koç Holding, and more. For on-premises deployment, I would rate it a 10. For cloud deployment, I would rate it a seven. I primarily use it on-premises. I rate F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) eight out of ten.
Muzi Lubisi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior technical Consultant at CA Africa
Improved user experience with seamless integration and easy installation
The feature that I mostly valued is the ease of installation on different systems, especially on Windows. Additionally, it is very beneficial for deploying single sign-on sessions between different windows on a web browser, provided I am connected to the right identity provider. That seamless integration significantly improves user experience and efficiency.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We have seen a return on investment from F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager; it provided access at a time when we didn't have it."
"In my opinion, the GUI is perfect with the configuration options provided. F5 BIG-IP has given customization options and policy configuration tools in the GUI. It's good and good enough to work."
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"On a scale from one to ten for stability, I would rate F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) a ten."
"The product allows us to create customized portals for your users."
"F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) provides excellent WAF and bot defense solutions."
"I recommend F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) to others due to its reliability, and it is perceived as critical to security infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is the Federation part of Single Sign On, which is customizable and is easily integrated with any customer application or any third party application."
"It restricts cookie replacement and provides enhanced ones, so the applications are safer, helping keep our data secure in a much better way without affecting user experience."
"Authentication Authorization for our websites are important because all the sites need authentication for security purposes and that has been handled pretty well all these years with SSO."
"It helps protect our applications and provides identity management."
"It has the ability to authenticate and authorize users. It is the main feature for our security."
"The feature that I mostly valued is the ease of installation on different systems, especially on Windows."
"The most valuable feature for us is the configuration feature; it permits us to connect our company to the offices of our subsidiaries, so when we buy a company we can connect their IT infrastructure to ours."
"Single Sign-On is the number one feature of SiteMinder that we're using."
 

Cons

"F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) does not have a direction for SaaS."
"Cloud services are something that F5 Access Policy Manager could do better"
"The solution is pretty technical. The initial setup is complex."
"Regarding price, I'm not directly involved in purchasing, but our CIO thinks the product is very expensive. He's considering moving from the tool to Citrix NetScaler WAF because it's cheaper, and we already have Citrix for VDI. We got NetScaler almost free as part of our VDI deal. Three years ago, I convinced him to use the solution because it's better, but now, with budget constraints, he may want to switch."
"Integrating identity providers and single sign-on solutions can simplify user authentication and access control."
"The stability of the F5 BIG-IP APM could be better."
"If I could copy and paste objects instead of picking and configuring them from scratch each time, it would be great."
"I have had a lot of issues in the past few months with the agents, which was disappointing."
"We have challenges, performance issues for which we’re unable to find the root cause as we scale."
"I've seen a lot of analytics capability being built in for a number of products. Obviously, I want to be able to use analytics on CA SSO as well."
"Upgrade planning is extensive and costly and involves a lot of applications, so we’d like to see that improved."
"It's a hit and miss thing, like all support organizations. For the most part, for simple problems they can get to a resolution fairly quickly, but if the problem is a little more complicated, they really struggle with getting us a solution."
"The technical support team is not very proactive."
"They need to make configurations easier, and not have the engineer having to guess what will happen when he changes a particular setting."
"All of the feedback within our team for CA Support is not good. It really is on a very low level, but then it is very specific for CA SSO."
"The technical support could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is very expensive."
"Recently, they have simplified the licensing"
"I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The tool is a little bit expensive."
"The price is quite comparable to the other enterprise-level solutions in that market."
"Siteminder is a little costly. You pay for licensing, and they offer packages, so if you have less users, then you have to buy different products at different prices. If you have more of a user base, then the package is different. They also include other features—for example, if you have a database and you're using Siteminder, then it's good to use a Semantic-specific database, but if you are using less, then you have to purchase the database separately. Whereas if you are going for a bigger license, then it comes within the package. It depends on which plan you are using."
"CA solutions are generally expensive but for the customer the ROI is big."
"The solution's pricing is competitive."
"The licensing is fair for this solution."
"I recommend conducting a PoC on every available product before choose one."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"Symantec Siteminder is expensive; they could definitely do better on the price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
9%
Educational Organization
7%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Insurance Company
8%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
Performing Arts
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise69
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM)?
F5 products are more expensive than other solutions but are valued for their quality and reliability, akin to purchasing a Bentley as opposed to an Audi.
What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM)?
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is not user-friendly and operates slowly. Additional features for architecture such as Anycast would be beneficial. The ability to run the Anycast feature woul...
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM)?
I am using F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) along with Bot Management, API Gateway, API Security, and F5 Cloud. I am using F5 Advanced WAF, but I switch between ZTNA solutions such as FortiSAS...
What needs improvement with Symantec Siteminder?
Symantec Siteminder needs to have adaptive authentication and multi-factor authentication as integrated features. Currently, multi-factor authentication is available as a separate solution, and it ...
What is your primary use case for Symantec Siteminder?
I deploy and support Symantec Siteminder ( /products/symantec-siteminder-reviews ). I have been a partner and reseller.
 

Also Known As

F5 Access Policy Manager
SiteMinder, CA SSO, Layer7 SiteMinder
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

City Bank, Ricacorp Properties, Miele, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office
British Telecom, CoreBlox, DBS, HMS, Itera ASA and Simeo
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. Symantec Siteminder and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.