F5 Advanced WAF Reviews

We use F5 Advanced WAF to secure our public cloud. We also use it to secure firewalls for applications and websites. Whether on-premises or on public cloud, these are the usual use cases for WAF.

The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to mitigate attacks: DDoS and DNS, or layer seven application attacks, OWASP, and email.

The vendor needs to work on developing an MSP model for this solution as that is what's trending on the market, plus integrating this solution under a SASE model. Not all vendors' products are compatible with SASE, and not compatible with delivering multi-deployment options from hardware appliance, VM-based, shared cluster, etc.

The compatibility of F5 Advanced WAF with multiple public cloud environments also needs to be improved, and not to be overlooked with the VMware environment.

This solution shouldn't only focus on Azure public cloud compatibility, as they need to also work with and be compatible with private cloud on multiple environments.

I'm not aware of the latest updates in terms of features, but they need to work on enhancing their product, because it seems they have an issue in the market. Day by day, they seem to be lagging behind all the new products in the market.

We've been working with this solution for one year.

The stability of this solution is not great. It's stable, but you are aware of the performance stability when you are relying on a VM-based environment, so there is another layer of performance of the infrastructure itself which you need to take into consideration when talking about stability.

Sometimes the product performance is good, but the infrastructure you are using causes some performance issues.

Now VMware is doing great when it comes to performance, so the performance of the F5 Advanced WAF licensed on our VMware environment is good as well.

This solution is not easy to scale. F5 is suffering from scalability issues. They are struggling with scalability.

I never contacted F5's technical support team because we are the main service provider, and this means we have our own support.

The initial setup for F5 Advanced WAF is complex.

We implemented this solution through our in-house team.

Pricing for this solution is higher than average in the market, when compared to its competitors. They should revise their prices in the market.

There is no additional cost besides the licensing, and it will also depend on the service delivery model: VM-based or hardware-based. The licensing model, however, is similar among all the vendors.

I evaluated FortiWeb.

I work with F5 Advanced WAF (Web Application Firewall). It's hardware-based and VM-based.

We are a partner of F5 as a technology vendor.

Deployment of this solution could either be on-premises, via cloud, or both. F5 and VMware has a partnership, so our infrastructure is based on the VMware environment which comes with the F5 capabilities for the WAF.

The technology is evolving every day and vendors are doing well. Each technology has its pros and cons, and it will take a long time to discuss areas for improvement.

One of the issues of this solution is that it is complex.

How long deployment will take will depend on the customer's environment and use cases.

Maintenance of this solution requires patching the vendor update which is most important for product maintenance or solution maintenance, and doing monitoring for availability and performance.

F5 Advanced WAF works among all segmentations and all market size: small, medium, or large companies. However, I am seeing based on my experience, that Fortinet's WAF technology: FortiWeb, is now doing much better than F5.

Fortinet is doing much better in all aspects: in the protection itself, user-friendliness, threat intelligence, etc. The capabilities of FortiWeb is doing good in the market. Both pricing and delivery models are also more competitive than F5 Advanced WAF's.

My advice to future customers of F5 Advanced WAF or to people thinking of using it is that there is a much better product in the market. One of the better products is Fortinet (FortiWeb).

I'm rating this solution a six out of ten.

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 primarily use the solution to protect web and API applications. You can choose either web classic or API to protect against different types of attacks.

With Advanced WAF protection, F5 was able to protect multiple kind of Web Application, supporting both HTTP & API protocols access

There are two main features that we love on F5.

The first is the hardware itself. It's extremely stable and reliable. We never face any issues with it and performance is never affected. 

The second is the features on offer. Feature-wise, they are always cutting edge and up-to-date. Many features aren't available via competitors. There's always a lot of enhanced critical features that just aren't available through anyone else, or, if they are, are too lightweight. They're the leaders in the space.

We usually use a third-party tool for logging and reporting. It would be nice if we could do that right on this solution. They have one, but it's not very stable. Logging and reporting effectively would be a big enhancement.

The solution still needs some development to handle more traffic, especially in huge environments. In small environments, it's not an issue. 

I've bee using the solution for more than ten years.

The solution is extremely stable and robust. There are no issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's great. The stability is a huge selling feature.

It's scalable. There's always options to upgrade the hardware. Any hardware you buy from a store, you have the basic model and the upgraded model. For example, if you buy the 4600 appliance, you can upgrade up to 4800. You get double specs for everything, so you can just upgrade the license of the hardware. However, hardware eventually has a limitation. If you buy too small of a size of hardware, eventually there's some development limitations for the hardware. You can, however, do a cluster. You can add multiple hardware devices. This makes it very scalable.

The solution is not user-based. It's more connection-based, so there's no limitation on the number of users. It's more of a limitation on total throughput or total connection. Limitations depend on the application and how much traffic it generates. We've seen it in Telco environment where there's more than millions of users. We've also seen it do well with online banking where there are thousands of users. Small companies can use it too. It can vary, however, we've seen it in millions of users at Telco.

Technical support is great. We always open tickets. They're always very fast and very professional, and they always solve the issues. We're extremely satisfied with the level of support we receive.

If you want to do the basic installation and get the system up and running, then it's pretty straightforward. However, you have the flexibility to go very advanced and you can get into very complicated scenarios. That's what we like about the solution. There's a lot of use cases where you're required to have the ability to create some advanced features or some complicated scenarios. It gives you the capabilities to handle them.

You have the flexibility to go beyond that and have advanced scripting rules and advanced features in order to have more capability to do new things that are not as common. You need to have the space to improvise things if you need to.

While a straightforward deployment may only take a few hours, as it has a pre-defined rough template, there's always tuning to be done. It's a security product. It's not like it's plug-and-play. There's always a learning phase and tuning is necessary. This is common with any security product. That said, to get it up and operational, it's a matter of hours.

For a proper work deployment, to be frank, you need an ether professional because there's an ether configuration change. You also need a security professional to do the rules and policies and everything. Then, you need the involvement of the web application developer, so you can understand the content of the web application. Security people don't know which link is good and which link is bad inside the application. Usually, you need three people from the team - one each from network, security, and application - to have a proper deployment.

We're an integrator.

We have a big customer base, therefore we always have to be up to date with the latest versions. We feed to constantly look at things so that we know the new features.

I highly recommend the solution to other companies. F5 has a huge portfolio of plug-ins. You can add it to the top of the web. On the same appliance, you can have your balancer, you can have your application authentication, and those things that turn on. You can have multiple other features on the same hardware. It is definitely a technology that adapts. I can use the application in different ways beyond just security.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at a perfect ten.

We use F5 Advanced WAF to protect our web applications.

What I found most valuable in F5 Advanced WAF is its automatic policy feature.

What needs to be improved in this solution is the accuracy of its automatic learning feature, because we frequently have to help it manually, particularly to stop blocking things it isn't supposed to block.

The technical support for F5 Advanced WAF, though fast and accurate, is costly. The cost could be improved.

I find F5 Advanced WAF a very stable solution.

The scalability of F5 Advanced WAF is very good.

The technical support for this tool is fast and accurate, but it's expensive.

The initial setup for F5 Advanced WAF was straightforward.

We are the integrator and reseller, so we deployed the solution in-house.

F5 Advanced WAF technical support comes at a cost, and it's expensive.

I'm using the latest version of F5 Advanced WAF: version 16.0.

We don't only use this solution for ourselves, as we also have some customers we implemented it for, because we are a reseller.

Deployment of F5 Advanced WAF took two to three days.

The advice I'd like to give to people who are looking into implementing this product is for them to read the documentation. It's all there.

I'm rating F5 Advanced WAF eight out of ten.

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. 

I use F5 for on-premises infrastructure to provide protection.

The most valuable features of this solution are the WAF protection, Data Safe, and the seven-layer DDoS.

I would like to see the API Protection improved.

I have been using F5 Advanced WAF for two years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product. We have no issues with the stability of the F5 Advanced WAF.

We have not yet tried to scale with this solution. We have increased by 15% to 20%. 

There are approximately 100 people in our company who use this solution.

I have contacted technical support several times. They have support consultants to provide help with your cases. I have received advice from them when I have tried to build new systems.

Overall, the technical support is excellent.

I am using it on my personal account on Google Cloud. It is used with cloud solutions. I use Google, Gmail, and Google Drive.

I was not a part of the initial setup.

The solution does not require any maintenance.

This solution was installed by a third party. It may have been the reseller.

I don't have any issue with the pricing of this solution. I am only involved with the technical portion of it.

I am not sure about recommending solutions.

I would rate F5 Advance WAF a nine out of ten.

We have several websites that are exposed to external users. We have a website for interaction with supply chain customers. We also have a website that gives access to CRM functionality to allow our customers to open tickets and disputes. F5 WAF is at the front for security and attack mitigation. It ensures that users are able to access only allowed pages.

The web application firewall itself is most valuable. It provides positive security and negative security. In negative security, it blocks a task such as cross-site scripting, code injection, etc. In positive security, it lets you specify and enforce things, such as the parameters allowed in username and password fields and the number of characters allowed in a field.

It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features. 

It is also quite intuitive and user-friendly. They have several webinars that are actually like labs. You can use these webinars to learn about how to use all features of the product.

Its price should be better. It is expensive.

In general, it is stable and reliable. Over the past few months, several vulnerabilities were found in the product, but which product doesn't have vulnerabilities? The main question is how fast do you get the fix for it, and they provided the fix quite quickly. We had to upgrade it as soon as possible to mitigate the risks.

I didn't try to expand it. We have two staff members who are using F5 Advanced WAF.

In terms of its usage, we are deploying it on all points through which we are exposing services, but we are currently not exposing too many services.

I had only one case for which I had to call tech support. It wasn't a straightforward ticket. It was quite a challenging ticket. Eventually, they found a solution, but it took some time. It was challenging to find the bug in one of the previous versions. They also didn't know about it. We did the troubleshooting together until we found the problem.

We were using another solution before switching to F5 Advanced WAF. We didn't have success with that solution because the integrator failed to deploy it properly. It was more complex and not user-friendly.

It was a little bit complex. If you want to add an additional layer or model like APM with two-factor authentication, then it requires a little bit more integration.

It is expensive. Its price should be better.

Its licensing is on a yearly basis. Its licensing is also based on the model. There are no additional costs.

I would recommend this solution to other users. I will advise others to learn a little bit about how the HTTP protocol works. They should be familiar with the functionality of the product. They should not use it without understanding what they are actually doing.

I would rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine out of ten.

We are using it to secure a few applications for our customers. 

The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features.

It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. 

One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device.

F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. 

F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall.

I have been using this solution almost for a year.

It has good stability. Our customers are happy with the implementation. So far, we haven't faced many issues.

Overall, it has been good. We get proper support, and we haven't faced any challenges. However, F5 doesn't provide support during the demo or POC time. Other vendors provide technical support for demo or POC, but F5 does not. We have to reach out to the local AC every now and then, which is a difficult task because most of the time, he is in some other meeting or busy with something else. So, he isn't able to support us. They should give us some kind of technical support for demos and POCs. We should be able to reach out to them for completing a POC. It would be an added advantage.

The implementation was quite smooth. We migrated from CloudFlare to F5 without any major issues. The deployment took almost ten months, and it included the implementation and fine-tuning. The customer had three applications.

Its price is fair. We have done a couple of deals where they were able to give some kind of discount to the customers. The price was initially high for the customers, but after a couple of negotiations, it came within their budget. They were happy with that.

I would recommend this solution because it is overall a very good solution. As a company, they are very established and stable, and they have a long legacy in the industry. They have been there in the industry for a long time. On top of that, they have very good solutions. They can just improve their offerings and marketing in terms of the new rebranding.

I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.