Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs Safe-T Secure Application Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Local Traffic Man...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
121
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (2nd)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (42nd), Access Management (29th), ZTNA (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Safe-T Secure Application Access aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is designed for Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) and holds a mindshare of 15.4%, down 15.9% compared to last year.
Safe-T Secure Application Access, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Infrastructure VPN, holds 0.3% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

Bonieber  Orofeo - PeerSpot reviewer
Identifying compromised traffic and securing data has been a significant advantage
One of the most beneficial features of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) ( /products/f5-big-ip-local-traffic-manager-ltm-reviews ) is its ability to identify compromised traffic and its capabilities in authentication. Additionally, the security aspect of it provides a significant advantage as it helps us secure our data, which is a major investment and benefit for us. Before using this system, we had difficulties in storing our data and managing the traffic that comes in and out.
it_user790473 - PeerSpot reviewer
The architecture is open to integration and development, making the product very flexible
We have a lot of in-house applications that we must integrate with a secure email system. We are a financial institute, so we must use it to send emails to our customers securely, because these emails contain sensitive customer data. The architecture of the product is very open to development, plug-ins and integration with in-house systems. We have been able integrate this system into our CRM and other operational systems. We didn't find that kind of flexibility in other secure email products. We have also been able to customize the user interface so it is branded and able to "talk" our marketing language. There is also a local Israeli vendor that helps us to improve the product, add the new features.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"We like the capability to combine the content switching with the intrusion prevention and adding the security roles, so we can expose certain sub-pieces outside without exposing everything."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"Great load balancing."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution."
"it has TCP LAN and WAN optimization features. It has has caching."
"We are using Application Security Manager (ASM) as a web application firewall, where there is a security signature to avoid a web level breach."
"Features such as SSL offloading, various balancing methods, and the ability to work with HTTP, HTTPS, or TCP protocols are beneficial."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
 

Cons

"LTM would be improved with the inclusion of signature-based blocking."
"It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based."
"The GUI needs improvement."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"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."
"I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome."
"The solution is scalable."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"F5 BIG-IP can be expensive, although there are trial versions available which are helpful to find out if the solution is right for your company."
"F5 is expensive."
"Take a look at the modules that you are going to use. Look into the best bundles for them."
"Though functionality is high, its cost can be considered slightly higher than its competitors​."
"This solution comes with a standard license, and there are also extra licenses that can be obtained. The licenses are purchasable for durations of one, two, three, and five years. The hardware is something to consider when purchasing"
"The price is high."
"The licensing pricing seems relatively easy enough to get your head around. I would advise anyone to ensure that you have a conversation with an F5 consultant before purchasing, as you would with most products."
"F5 BIG-IP is a stable solution. It is quite mature and does not have many concerns."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
853,118 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
The price needs improvement as it is quite costly.
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
We're using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) ( /products/f5-big-ip-local-traffic-manager-ltm-reviews ) for our applications and for managing our incoming and outgoing traffic.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Find out what your peers are saying about NetScaler, F5, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: May 2025.
853,118 professionals have used our research since 2012.