We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and NGINX Plus 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."Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"It is stable."
"What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"The web application firewall feature is the most valuable and useful feature. It is a leading industry product when it comes to load balancing. Its user interface is very simple. There isn't a steep learning curve. When we initiate someone to F5, they start using it quickly."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"The feature I find the most valuable is the support infrastructure."
"The load balancing function, the monitors that you can create, and iRules programmability are most valuable."
"NGINX Plus also has NGINX App Protect. It's a separate module, which is inspired by the F5 apps."
"NGINX Plus' most valuable feature is the ingress controller."
"This solution has everything."
"The web proxy and the database proxy are excellent."
"Supports IMAP, POP and SMTP protocols for the reverse proxy."
"The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions."
"F5 BIG-IP LTM can improve on the SSL loading which includes the authentication of certificates. Although, most of these issues have been solved there are still some issue that persists."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The initial setup can take a long time."
"I would like to see better integration."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"NGINX Plus is moderately priced, but it could give better value for money."
"The drawback is that you must obtain a license for everything."
"The KPI should be more focused on load balancing and the latency in application calling from the end system."
"The center management system could be improved."
"NGINX is a very basic load balancer and cannot do as many customizations as F5."
"It would be great if there was even more automation to make it even easier to maintain."
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 44 reviews while NGINX Plus is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 6 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while NGINX Plus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Great support, helpful documentation, and is user-friendly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NGINX Plus writes "Quick installation and very easy to manage while doing orchestration or automation". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas NGINX Plus is most compared with IIS, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and Apache Web Server. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. NGINX Plus report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
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.
