We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and ThreatLocker Protect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The portal access was very good."
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"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 most valuable feature is the virtual IP creation. It's our most frequently used feature."
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"The product allows us to create customized portals for your users."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"While it can be frustrating at times, we appreciate the low-level security provided by the application whitelist."
"The interface is clean and well-organized, making it simple to navigate and find what we need."
"Application control, ring-fencing, and storage control are the most important features, followed closely by elevation."
"The great thing is that if you get a malicious email and you try to run something, ThreatLocker is not going to let it do anything. It is not going to let anything infect your network."
"The sandbox functionality is fantastic."
"Feature-wise, the learning mode and the fact that it's blocking everything are the most valuable. I don't see why more companies don't use the type of product."
"We use ThreatLocker's Allowlisting to whitelist specific applications and prevent unauthorized software from running."
"The biggest improvement has been knowing that something unauthorized isn't going to get installed on anyone’s machines."
"The solution is quite costly."
"F5 BIG-IP APM disconnects when you leave it for long enough, but that is natural for IT solutions to do. That's a little bit frustrating."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"We do not have knowledgeable support teams locally."
"The solution’s GUI looks very old."
"The price of this product can be improved."
"I'd suggest improved documentation integration directly within the GUI. Right now, finding comprehensive documentation often requires going to external websites like the community portal."
"The reporting could be improved."
"We identified several areas that we would like to see improved."
"The portal can be a little overwhelming at times from an administration point of view. It displays a lot of information, and it's all useful. However, sometimes there is too much on the screen to sift through, especially if you're trying to diagnose a client's problem with a piece of software. Maybe something has stopped working since they updated it, and we need to see if ThreatLocker is blocking a component of that software."
"Something we have come up against a couple of times is that we have two clients that are software developers. They create software that doesn't have digital signatures and that's not easy to categorize or whitelist with ThreatLocker. We have to go in and make custom rules to allow them to do their work and to be protected from malicious threats."
"The snapshots used in the ThreatLocker University portal are outdated snippets and have not been updated in conjunction with the portal itself."
"ThreatLocker could offer more flexible training, like online or offline classes after hours. The fact that they even provide weekly training makes it seem silly to suggest, but some people can't do it during the day, so they want to train after work. They could also start a podcast about issues they see frequently and what requires attention. A podcast would be helpful to keep us all apprised about what's going on and/or offline training for those people who can't train during the week."
"ThreatLocker Allowlisting needs to improve its user interface and overall workflow."
"More visibility in the built-ins would be nice."
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 7th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews while ThreatLocker Protect is ranked 6th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2, while ThreatLocker Protect is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) writes " Facilitates packet inspection, modification, and offloading and offers visibility and troubleshooting capabilities, allowing for pre-production server testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatLocker Protect writes "Integration is simple, deployment is straightforward, and extensive well-written documentation is available online". F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is most compared with Citrix Gateway, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Ivanti Connect Secure and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, whereas ThreatLocker Protect is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress and GravityZone Business Security. See our F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. ThreatLocker Protect report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.
