We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Fortinet FortiWeb based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager to balance traffic."
"The detail that you have available when setting up iRules."
"iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"One of the greatest things about F5 Load Balancer is that it provides additional capability for handling huge workloads and routing them to an SAP or non-SAP application. It is capable of supporting a large amount of user workload and application connectivity workload. This was the main reason why we chose F5."
"It helps us recognize sessions from certain IPs that are authorized to manage the application. This is a function we haven't found anywhere else."
"The product is quite flexible."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"High-performance and detection engines, provide a high rate of exposure of web attacks."
"Banks have to be compliant with PCI and other things, and FortiWeb is absolutely amazing in terms of providing these reports. Otherwise, they will have to spend a lot of time on them."
"Fortinet FortiWeb has improved my organization by protecting our customer's web infrastructure environment."
"Some of the threat detection analytics and the filtering capabilities they give us for filtering a certain type of information that we don't want coming into the site are its valuable features. The analytics are pretty good in terms of being able to see what threats have been detected and mitigated, where they're coming from, and things like that."
"Auto Learn feature: Makes policy additions or deletions for my customers very simple"
"FortiWeb offers a good price for the marketplace. In the Sri Lankan market, it's hard to find high-end products that can match FortiWeb's pricing. For high-end solutions, the price is always extremely high."
"We find that it is quite stable and reliable."
"The valuable feature of Fortinet FortiWeb vulnerability scanner"
"This is a very expensive solution."
"I would like to see better integration."
"I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy."
"Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"Fortinet FortiWeb could improve data integration."
"The solution could improve by being able to handle different use cases."
"I had some small problems when I was upgrading firmware. After the upgrade, some of my certificates were deleted."
"Their support needs improvement."
"Fortinet WAF came out recently, and there is not much feedback about customer experience. For each project, customers ask about the scenarios and references of the customers who have implemented this solution, which we don't have. They need to simplify the customer experience and provide more information so that we can propose Fortinet Fortiweb as a WAF solution to customers and convince them. They need to improve their service and training. We need good training to implement and use it properly and know more about it. We still don't know much about Fortinet WAF. We didn't get any proper training sessions. Other vendors like Cisco, Palo Alto, Check Point, and Barracuda provide such sessions. Whenever we receive a request from a customer for this solution, we just give the price. We don't propose this solution because we don't know much about it. We propose whatever we are familiar with and what is supported."
"FortiWeb does not exist in a cloud-based form. Its only available for deployment as a virtual appliance on AWS and Azure IaaS platforms. Because of the trend to WAF environments, it would be good to have it as a SaaS. Also, FortiWeb would be more competitive if it combined WAF and DDoS protection."
"For advanced users, it would be really useful to have access and the ability to manipulate packets. If we can access and manipulate the contents of packets, even encrypted packets... that would be powerful. Since we're looking at packets arriving at our network, we would have the private key to access those packets and their information."
"We have had problems with deployments where we've had to contact technical support to resolve them."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, whereas Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Fortinet FortiWeb report.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
