F5 Advanced WAF Reviews

We use the product for load-balancing purposes.

The product has valuable features for load balancing, monitoring tools, and HPXpress services.

They could provide better pricing.

We have been using F5 Advanced WAF for a year.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

The product is highly scalable. It is suitable for enterprise businesses. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

I rate the initial setup process a seven out of ten.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF's pricing a three out of ten.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for web application protection. The solution offers layer seven protection of the applications and can be configured against attacks.

There are a lot of good features.

I would like for there to be a cloud-based solution, this would also help to improve scalability.

I have been using this solution for about a year or so.

This solution is quite stable.

Scalability is limited since it is an on-premise solution. You will have to size your box properly, based your throughput and capacity. Our company uses it to protect all traffic of out 5.5 thousand users and we have plans to expand the usage.

Support was helpful when we reached out.

We used Kona Defender and Akamai Web Application Firewall for about a year prior to using F5. The main reason that we switched was due to costs.

The initial setup was rather complex taking a lot of time and information to be configured. We have two administrators for maintenance. 

Our consultant was able to help us integrate the solution in a day or two.

There is a perpetual license that comes with your hardware. There is also an additional fee for support.

When you choose to go with F5, be sure to size your box properly so that the capacity is taken care of. From there, you will be able to easily configure the platform to provide you with a lot of value. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I was working in sales. We would provide more corporate products. I am not implementing or deploying this solution. I would sell it for projects in the enterprise direction, but it was mostly for financial institutions and some government companies.

It usually used for e-commerce and financial services. Products that banks provide to their customers. It also offers protection of the services.

It is easy to use, and it's also easy to configure. 

The most valuable feature is that it is secure.

The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use.

I would hope that they provide some updates sooner rather than later.

I have used F5 Advanced WAF for three months in the last year.

We were using the latest version and we update on a regular basis.

It's a very stable solution.

This is a scalable product.

Our customers are in the banking system and we have approximately 200 to a few thousand customers.

We have official support from the distribution channel. One of our distributors is in Ukraine.

They have their own support definition provided with some certifications who are responsible for providing support at the vendor level.

We usually ask for their support and they provide it to us.

Previously, we used BIG-IP and we used Web Application Firewall.

I was not involved in the installation.

I am currently working on a B2C channel, which is more for retail companies.

I have also been working with Apple company for a little bit more than a month.

I am working with all-in-one products with all services included.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It's not popular in our country but it's unique in itself. There are some segments that became more important on a regular basis, especially for large companies and enterprise segments.

It's a secure product. I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

The anti-bot protection is the solution's most valuable feature. Safe-guard or credential staffing are also useful features.

The templates of the iApps could be better.

The solution's dashboard could be improved. When you're moving from policy to policy, the logs and the integration of the logs in other systems aren't straightforward.

The solution has a lot of training material, but not about integration in a virtual improvement. They should create more documentation around this for users. 

The solution is stable.

Technical support is very good. I only use it four ot five times a year. If I find any bugs I post it to their file. It's very good support. They offer excellent service.

The initial setup was very simple. It was just for the machine: the ASM port and the WAF itself, not the deployment of the appliance, which is why it was easy.

I'm an integrator, so I help implement the solution for clients.

The pricing of the solution is very high.

Before selecting this solution, we looked at Kemp. We were concerned with the WAF, which is why we decided not to go with Kemp.

We're using several versions of the solution; anything between versions 12 to 14.

I would recommend the solution. It's the best option for WAF, at least in the last year or so.

I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

We are a PPS payment providing services company in banking, so, we are using it for that. We are banking company and we are using it as a web application firewall.

We have an SOC, and for collecting logs we are also using the F5 logs to analyze the securities and events. So having a central log management and F5 really helped us to analyze the security logs. It also helps with blocking the attacks on web applications.

Everything is good about the F5 WAF, except the reporting. It's really difficult to set records from that device, the UI is kind of hard to work with, and the reporting must be improved.

As a suggestion to the F5 company, they have to put in shells to have the next generation WAF. So, instead of buying different modules and different hardware and appliances, they can offer an all-in-one solution for WAF.

The initial setup was was easy to install. Our department wasn't installing it, the infrastructure department installed it, so we gave them the policy that we wanted to use.

Because of the sanctions, we couldn't buy it straight from the US, so we bought it from an Iranian company. They provided us that solution. The company that sold us the device also had some people to consult with us to give us best practices from the previous companies that installed it.

I think it's a good product but the F5 uses shells, so the people who want to work with the device have to be pro in Linux. If they can put everything in the UI so every regular security engineer can work with it, it's fabulous.

I would rate the solution 8 out of 10. We are concerned about the other factors but it's actually not F5 company's fault. The pricing is really high here right now because of the dollar rate but it has nothing to do with the F5, it's because of the sanctions I imagine. At the moment it's a really expensive solution for us, not only F5 but the other appliances. 
If I went to another company, and the other company hired me, I would suggest they use this device. Although we don't have a lot of options to choose from around here.

I'm the deputy manager of information security and we are customers of WAF.

We're in a banking environment and the signature update is a good feature. It's also very easy to implement WAF. The product works well for us. 

Although we're getting some reports, we're not getting all the reports we need. There seems to be a gap in report management. 

The solution is stable. 

We haven't really tested scalability; we currently have one network team, two or three people who handle the product and we have multiple applications and servers hosted on the WAF so there's no need to scale for now. 

We're satisfied with the technical support. 

The initial setup was a good experience. We had support from the WAF team and a consultancy team for implementation who also provided good support. 

This is a good solution, it's very useful and offers easy application management, which is good to have at the perimeter level. It provides good security against threats and attacks.

From a security point of view, I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

The anti-bot protection has been the most valuable.

I think the deployment template can be better, like the iApps they have in the F5 MPM. I think the deployment templates can be better.

The solution is pretty stable.

The technical support is very good. I'm using the F5 technical support, maybe once a quarter. Something like three to five times a year. When I find a bug then I post them to their forum because I'm using it a lot. I can find the bugs. But its very good support.

The initial setup was very simple. The initial setup is done by the machine. The ASM HS, the WAF itself, not the deployment of the application. So it was very simple, I am working with VIP for almost a full year. Something like ninety percent of my activities are F5 related. I specialize in F5 now and everything in F5 is very, very simple.

I'm an integrator.

I think the price is very high. This is what I hear from the customers. Sometimes we cannot sell the product because it is a higher price.

I evaluated a few other options. Kemp, for example, but Kemp is not a WAF it's a load balancer, it's for another model of the F5 so its not related to do WAF. And we're speaking about the WAF. 

I would recommend this solution. It would be the best solution for WAF.

I think the dashboard can be improved. When you move from the policy to policy, the logs and the integration of the logs are without a system. Maybe make it like other SIEM systems and system servers like Splunk. They do have a lot of training videos and manuals. This helps. But not really about integration or feature improvement.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

F5 is a web application firewall and load balancer. 

The primary use case of this solution is for data protection and security.

I like all of the features, but the main one is the attack signatures.

If they could separate the control plane from the data plane, it would give us more flexibility, especially with the Hyper Cloud. This could be the reason they purchased NGINX.

They have released the first production release but they are not there yet. It would be good to have this separation in the near future.

Also, automation on the cloud is not easy. It's a bit of a job, and it doesn't auto-scale very well.

They need to work on the BIG-IQ, which is centralized management. There are too many devices. Managing them individually is inconvenient. Essentially, BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

The stability is very good.

There is no solution that is bug-free, but when comparing it with other vendors, I would say that F5 is less buggy than the others.

The scalability is an issue at the moment, which is the reason they need to separate the control plane from the data plane.

We are using this solution daily. It runs 24/7.

The technical support is very good. They are knowledgeable and helpful.

The initial setup was simple and it took an hour to deploy.

This solution does not require a lot of maintenance but we need to do the patching regularly.

We do the implementation but at times we get consultations from F5.

It's more expensive than other solutions and depending on the modules, there can be additional fees.

If I would compare F5 with other solutions, the main differences are the support and the stability of the code, it has fewer bugs.

For on-premises deployments I would recommend F5, but for the cloud, it would be questionable.

I would rate this solution a seven of ten.