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

F5 VIPRION [EOL] vs Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

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 VIPRION [EOL]
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ivanti Virtual Web Applicat...
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (16th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (46th)
 

Featured Reviews

DP
Project Manager at FPT
Easy to use, good performance, and the SSL upload capability is helpful
The biggest lesson that I have learned from working with this product is that the sizing must be correct, which is because of the cost of the device and the license. We sometimes have problems because pre-sales engineers will suggest a lower model to save on costs, but this results in substandard performance that cannot handle the level of throughput and concurrent connections. It is very important to have the sizing assessed properly. Overall, I think that the product is very good and our only complaint is about the pricing. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
reviewer890211 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
Good feature set and is simple to deploy
In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else. We sort of stopped deploying them because of that. There are additional costs to the standard licensing. There are bandwidth prices. The feature set is quite good. We've been told to stop using them because of the price. If they can do something to address that I believe it would be better. On the latest version they've got a community edition, which is quite a good bandwidth, but in essence, it's to address the entry-level price. When you get to 10 gig bandwidth, it's way too expensive.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the SSL upload."
"There are several levels of module so a company can upgrade if necessary."
"The solution itself is perfect. It's easy to configure and we haven't had any initial issues with the hardware or power supply."
"The most valuable feature is the vertical scaling of the application infrastructure."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that it is simple to deploy. The deployment took us ten minutes."
 

Cons

"It's unfortunate that the network firewall isn't really a next generation firewall."
"The pricing for this solution should be reduced so that it can be more competitive."
"It's hard to scale down the solution. You need to buy another product in order to do this."
"The initial setup is complex but it is manageable."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of this solution can be quite high, and it is determined based on the size that is required for the environment."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Also Known As

VIPRION
Pulse vWAF, Pulse Virtual Traffic Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

City Bank, Ricacorp Properties, Miele, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office
Gilt Groupe
Find out what your peers are saying about NetScaler, F5, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: January 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.