We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Radware Bot Manager 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."Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"The most valuable feature is being able to manipulate the iRules, so you can send traffic to different avenues."
"The most valuable feature is customization."
"I think F5's tech support may be better than Citrix's because they mainly focus on the ADC product, but Citrix support covers Hypervisor, XenMobile, FAS, and ADC. And from my experience, sometimes, we face some issues that Citrix cannot handle."
"it has TCP LAN and WAN optimization features. It has has caching."
"We are fond of the load balancing feature for DNS and servers."
"The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"I like how Bot Manager automatically detects when a suspicious user attempts to download content from your website."
"Bot Manager is an excellent tool for analyzing traffic to detect suspicious patterns. It uses artificial intelligence to identify malicious behavior."
"Bot Manager's behavioral modeling and intelligence help us distinguish between harmless and malicious bots."
"The most valuable feature is the bot management itself and the way it has stopped bots from scraping our site, with its AI mechanism. Its ability to detect and mitigate bots is really good."
"The solution provides a rating of the sophistication of the bot attack."
"It's very good at categorizing the different types of bots, whether they're malicious or good. Bot is a very generic term. It could be good, it could be bad. Quite a lot of legitimate businesses are using bot-type services to just scrape the internet for information."
"The ASM administration is quite complex. The topic itself is pretty complex, so it is not easy to provide a nice, clean interface. There are a lot of references and dependencies in-between the different subareas."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"Based on my experience using F5 and by only taking into consideration the last seven years, I have found that the reporting mechanism is bad."
"LTM's cloud capabilities could be improved. Cloud providers all offer load balancing, but you can't get the same level of security. F5's cloud service is still not on par with its on-prem service."
"The one gap I saw was that pure LBN integration is a little tricky. The insertion of F5 in LBN is a little tricky. They need to work on something, on products by which they can insert F5 in any sort of cloud environment."
"It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it."
"F5 has another solution to load balance servers on the cloud, which they got after the purchase of NGINX. It is deployed as Kubernetes or something like that, but the problem now is that they have two solutions for two situations. They should make F5 deployable on the cloud."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"I would like more ability to configure custom rules. Currently, I need to open a ticket with support to request a specific rule that isn't available in the console. In some cases, I don't have visibility into the logs or they are too complicated to analyze."
"We're missing links to their modules for installation and configuration. They have most of them available already, but there were situations for mobile applications that, when they released a new version, were not stable. We had to ask them to send a link by email, and that could be made accessible in the portal."
"It would be good to have more integrations. It's very hard to get data in and out of their portal. It doesn't have any integrations with any of our tools, such as our SIEM tool. It only depends on emails. Having that tied into the warehouse, SIEM, and maybe our on-call tools would be very helpful because it would just give us a holistic picture of everything."
"It would be beneficial to have a link from the WAF to the Bot Manager portal available so we do not have to log in again."
"Bot Manager is doing its job, but I think the behavioral modeling could be improved by adding fingerprinting and automation. Remediation should be automated so that it doesn't require any intervention by the user."
"Radware Bot Manager is a little costly but not too expensive. It's in the middle."
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 Radware Bot Manager is ranked 3rd in Bot Management with 8 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Radware Bot Manager is rated 9.2. 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 Radware Bot Manager writes "Categorizes different types of bots very well and is very effective at detecting and mitigating bots in real time". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy, whereas Radware Bot Manager is most compared with Fastly, F5 Shape Security, Akamai Bot Manager, Cloudflare and AWS WAF. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Radware Bot Manager 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.