F5 Advanced WAF Reviews

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 many types of service, provided by the company.

We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country. It has a replication feature. Licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license.

The reporting could be clearer and embedded to include our movement data. The product could improve the interface by reducing the bookmarking more frequently and some other features. Ideally, it could do with a brand new interface. There is sometimes information overload in the logs. It is sometimes difficult to detect attacks on the firewall because it is hidden amongst many other data. The logs are not always helpful in this regard. I was disappointed in the reporting.

We have been using F5 Advanced Web Application Firewall for about one year and the same for Fortinet FortiWeb.

Scalability is fine, and we don't have any complaints so far. It's flexible once you want to expand it, but that includes the license upgrade for additional features.

We use a reseller for technical support. Technical support is very good.

We have looked at other options, but they have different solutions to the F5 Advanced Web Application Firewall.

Setup and installation are easy.

We use the reseller to implement it from scratch until it is fully deployed. Implementation does not take long.

There are various plans available for Fortinet FortiWeb Cloud WAF as a Service, including a trial version. You are only charged by the total data transferred, and there are hourly charges for the protected web application.

We are constantly looking out for features which are not available in the current product. We have set alerts to flag when these features become available.

I would rate this solution as 9 out of 10. They can combine firewall software with other software solutions with this product. It has a good community to see what other ideas for the product are out there.

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.

I worked with the solution before starting at this new company and I'm now implementing it in my new job. I'm head of security at our company and we are a customer of NGINX Web Application Firewall. 

The product is very easy to use and they provide great support. I like the dashboard and reporting. 

The scalability could be improved. There is a version with 25 and 200 Mbps, no options in between

I've been using this solution for one year.

It's a stable solution. I haven't had any problems with it. 

The technical support is good, I'm happy with it.  

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

We are a system integrator and we design solutions for our customers. We provide all kinds of networking solutions, as well as security, and we are sometimes responsible for the integration as well.

We are partners with F5 and this is one of the solutions that we provide to our clients.

Our customers are organizations, including government departments, who use their firewall for load-balancing purposes. However, for some time now, they have wanted to add an additional layer of security, which is why they implement this solution.

We normally propose the on-premises deployment model to our customers.

This solution is an enterprise-class firewall that provides both load-balancing and security.  Once it's deployed, it works smoothly and without issue.

I would like to see the pricing of this solution improved. There are a lot of other products that are trying to compete with this solution, and there are a few now that are very good. I know that F5 doesn't always worry about the pricing because of the branding, but if they want to capture more of the market then they need to consider that not everybody thinks about the brand. Some are concerned with the price, and some of the competitors offer solutions at a lower cost. While it is true that price is only one of the things that people consider, it is one of the major factors that can cause them to lose the battle to a competitor.

This solution can be made more user-friendly.

This is an enterprise-class product, and as long it is deployed properly it is quite stable. We have not had any issues post-deployment. This is one of the reasons that customers are paying for F5.

This is a very scalable solution.

Technical support for this solution is good. We have had a couple of tickets, and it was pretty good.

The complexity of the initial setup is on a case-by-case basis.

If the customer is primarily interested in load-balancing then it is straightforward and it takes a few days. Once the customer is ready with all of their information, it doesn't take much time. In more advanced scenarios, it can take months to fully set up and configure.

Keep in mind that this is an enterprise-level product, so many of the competitors will take less time in setup. Not every engineer can configure F5 WAF.

We perform the integration for our clients. We have our own deployment team that keeps up to date with the latest features in the market. They have the latest training materials and are aware of technical changes that are happening when it comes to these solutions.

When we have this kind of project, one person will be dedicated to the deployment and they will ensure that the solution has been deployed properly. After this, things will be taken care of by the general engineering team. We have a pool of resources who can handle maintenance such as upgrades.

Licensing fees for this solution are paid on a yearly basis.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to have clarity with respect to their own scenario, or application. They have to know what they are expecting out of this deployment. As the system integrator, I may not be sure about the client's applications or how they work internally, so I have to rely on them.

I would rate this solution a nine 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.

This solution inspects your traffic and based on that, automatically create distinct qualities for you, so you can add this to the policy already created. That's what I like most.

I would not expect traffic details to pass through the web application firewall across the length of the whole application. I think that there is a web application where it can let the application function without traffic going in into the WAF.

I think the solution is already being phased out. They are now going for a more advanced option but I'm referring to the web crawler. The web crawler should be able to allow a web application on its own to create policies, rather than wait for traffic to go to the WAF.

There are templates for creating policies, so the initial setup is very straightforward.

I would want to use ASM, or Area Security Manager, which I would rate as seven of ten. That offers lending passability, where the device should be able to lend or call the application and know the component of an application.