F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

I used F5 BIG-IP LTM for the backend load balancing for the servers.

The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller.

The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models.

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for approximately eight years.

The TMOS of F5 BIG-IP LTM has a mid-layer that is an open source software and the user's management layer which can cause some issues for potential security risks. Other solutions have operating systems that are more secure, such as Cisco, Juniper, and Huawei.

People tend not to use F5 BIG-IP LTM because of this issue. They prefer to use more proprietary solutions, such as Apple solutions which typically can be more secure.

Overall the solution is stable as long as you have the updates and proper configurations.

If there is a need to scale, there is a need to replace the hardware to allow for additional scalability.

Our department is between fifteen to twenty people as operators, but we are selling to half a million customers using the solution.

I rate the scalability of F5 BIG-IP LTM five out of ten.

There is poor support in the region if there are issues. If someone does not pay the high price for premium support then the quality of the support is not ideal. 

I have used many other solutions similar to F5 BIG-IP LTM. There are other solutions that provide the same functionality at a lower price.

The documentation is detailed for the implementation and overall usage of the solution compared to other vendors. The knowledge of their solution and training is great.

We use professional implementation services to deploy F5 BIG-IP LTM.

The licensing model of F5 BIG-IP LTM is highly complex. The operation cost of the solution is high. The overall cost is high.

I rate the price of  F5 BIG-IP LTM a one out of ten.

We are slowly shifting to a new solution because of the lack of support in the region. Additionally, the new solution has similar delivery, a less expensive, and an uncomplicated licensing model.

Overall, F5 BIG-IP LTM is a quality solution. However, if you do not complete the frequent updates there can be security threats.

I rate F5 BIG-IP LTM a seven out of ten.

If companies have the money then this is a good solution. However, if they do not have the budget there are other solutions with similar features on the market.

The primary use case of this solution is for reverse processing applications and services. 

Our organization greatly benefited from having a reliable and always-accessible F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). The customization options have especially come in handy, and we can modify, insert or remove the header. 

The most valuable feature is iRules.

The area for improvement would be analytical capabilities and configurations in LTM. For example, I want to know the end-to-end processes. If the traffic comes to the virtual servers without taking a wide shot, I would like to see the reason for the latency. The analytics should provide insight into latency across various traffic routes and virtual servers. The additional features in the next release should be real-time analytical capabilities.

I have used F5 BIG-IP LTM for 12 years.

It is a stable product. There have not been any issues with stability, and I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

In terms of scalability, there are some limitations on the architecture level in F5. For example, F5 has a limit of eight Virtual Control Planes (VCPs) per hardware configuration. It means expansion and scalability require additional hardware resources. I would rate scalability a five out of five. Only I am involved with this solution at my company.

The customer service and support team are experts, but I have faced difficulty with response time and resolution time. They need to have more workforce to deal with clients’ resolutions.

Positive

I have been using the F5 BIG-IP LTM for 12 years and have not felt compelled to look at alternatives.

The initial setup of F5 BIG-IP LTM is straightforward. It is user-friendly and takes around 30 minutes to set up. A beginner could set it up. You just follow the documentation.

The product is deployed on-premise.

I definitely have seen an increase in ROI.

I use a yearly subscription, which is the most expensive one now compared to its competitors.

I would rate the pricing a one out of ten. It is the most expensive solution out there. 

I also evaluated Cisco and Citrix. I evaluated the F5 based on its stability, customization and reliability. No other product can match it.

Users should keep their individual needs in mind before deciding whether to opt for this solution, considering the applications that need delivering, if load balancing is necessary or if an ADC is required. Such questions can help users make the right choice.

I would rate F5 LTM a ten out of ten. 

I use the solution for load balancing.

The most valuable features of the solution are in the area of DDoS and WAF.

Price is an area of the tool where improvements are required.

I want to see CDN capabilities in the product.

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for five years. I recommend the solution to my company's customers. I am a reseller of the tool.

I am satisfied with the technical support provided for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I only work with F5, apart from a local LAN platform. I switched to F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) from another tool because I was not satisfied with it.

The tool is a bit expensive. I cannot recommend another tool in its place to those who don't find it budget-friendly.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is better than other tools as it is easy to install and configure. The tool has a good UI.

The tool's SSL offloading capabilities had no impact on our network performance.

The tool does not fit my traffic requirements.

Speaking about application security and compliance, I use the tool for all the local LANs and applications in my environment.

There is no AI in the tool.

I recommend the tool to others.

I wouldn't recommend the tool to small companies, considering its high price and the infrastructure needs of small businesses.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

We have deployed it for two customers. One uses the local LTM for load balancing the application. The other uses it as a raft and for load balancing.

F5 is easy to deploy, though more challenging than Kemp. Configuration takes time, but it's stable. It offers features Kemp doesn't provide. For example, there are predefined templates for handling Office 365. You can download them for automatic configuration.

In terms of pricing, it could be more competitive.

I have been working with this solution for more than six years. 

It is a stable product.

It is scalable. All our customers are enterprise-level. 

I'm satisfied with the technical support from F5. The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

It is easy to deploy. It took us a few hours to deploy because we had experience with the solution. A few hours will be sufficient if you have already studied how to deploy.

Configuration and deployment depend on the GUI. F5 has a different GUI, so it takes some time to get used to it. Kemp, on the other hand, has a single page where you can access everything. 

With F5, you have to go to different sections for configuration. For example, to deploy a certificate, you import it, create a profile, go to the virtual service section, and link the profile. Kemp simplifies this process by allowing a static import of the certificate, making it more straightforward.

GUI plays a significant role in the ease of configuration.

One person is enough for the deployment process. 

Maintenance is not that difficult, but compared to Kemp, it is. Upgrading can be challenging; I faced issues with F5 upgrades, needed support assistance.

Pricing is quite high. We have taken it on a five-year basis. Not yearly.

And for support also, there is an extra cost.

It depends on the customer's requirements. If both F5 and Kemp provide have the same features, I would suggest the customer go with Kemp because it's the cheapest solution. But if the customer requires something different supported by F5, then go with F5.

Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten; there is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

I use the tool as a load balancer to distribute user traffic across different servers. It is used for scalability purposes. Depending on the amount of traffic that comes in, I can send that traffic to different servers and load-balance it. Also, the web application firewall protects our servers and applications from cyberattacks.

The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is that it allows you to manipulate things. Now, manipulation here is in the sense that you can do whatever you want to do in the solution using something called iRule, which is a programming interface for F5. So, this is something I find to be extremely useful when compared to other vendors.

Based on my experience using F5 and by only taking into consideration the last seven years, I have found that the reporting mechanism is bad. F5 seems to prioritize its core functions and has not placed a strong emphasis on logging and reporting. I say that the reporting is bad based on my experiences and after considering the requests from customers over the past 11 years. They often ask for specific reports and information that are not available from the devices.

I want the response from tech support to get faster.

I have worked for almost 11 years with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager.

The solution's stability is pretty good.

I handle almost a hundred-plus customers who are using this solution. The solution comes in different form factors. The high-end models are scalable owing to their ability to cater to certain requirements. So, since there are different models available, the solution is scalable.

I am not happy with the tech support. If I compare it with Fortinet, it is not great. Though I am able to connect over a call with the tech team, it is very difficult to get the right engineer at the right time. When it comes to Fortinet, you get the right person to help you at the right time.

While the initial setup of the tool is easy and straightforward, the complexity of onboarding each application can vary and depends on the specific application being used. Also, since I have been working on F5 for about 11 years, it may take me a day to deploy the whole setup.

I am not aware of the exact cost of the product. However, it is expensive. The pricing can either be on a yearly or monthly subscription basis, and this choice is left to the customer's discretion. The product also includes a basic hardware support guarantee and subscription-based services, which can affect the overall cost.

People need to have a basic understanding of HTTP and SSF. Additionally, this device is not solely a networking device but rather a solution that operates as an application device. Therefore, knowledge of applications, programming, and related fields is essential. I just mean to say that the people who are planning to use this solution should not only have a background in networking but also should possess some application programming knowledge. I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

For my clients, the primary use cases include load balancing, both for server and link load balancing.

We have used it to link two or three servers and make them communicable from outside. It works well as a load balancer.

There is room for improvement in terms of stability. The F5 BIG-IP LTM allows multiple virtual machines to run on a single appliance. However, if one of those virtual portions fails, it can cause issues and impact the overall stability of the solution.

I have been working with this solution for four years. I have worked with F5 as a system integrator, partner, and MSP.

It is a stable solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten. Rather than having separate appliances for each virtual machine, the F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) allows multiple virtual machines to run on one appliance. However, if one of those virtual portions is no longer available, it can cause issues.

It is scalable. I would say it's around eight or nine out of ten. Our clients are at the enterprise level. 

The customer service and support is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy. I would rate the initial installation a nine out of ten, one being very difficult and ten being very easy.

We installed the solution in a web-based environment and have implemented it in two data centers, one located in New Jersey and the other in a different location. We have used F5 for both firewall load balancing and link load balancing. We have two sets of F5 deployed at each location. 

We completed the installation within a week with the help of a team of five people. At present, a team of five is managing and maintaining the solution in the data center and for the local portion.

It is cheaper than the average on the market. I would rate it as a five since it is in the middle range, with ten being the most expensive. It is good, and the price is reasonable. 
Moreover, I have only worked on five or six devices and have not dealt with licensing rules. However, in my previous job as a system integrator, I did work on local installations, which were relatively quick and inexpensive.

In my opinion, the Radware product is also good. F5 and Alteon products are equally good, so I would rate them an eight.

I would recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using F5 BIG-IP LTM for our application which is a reverse proxy. We use it for availability, and to process the application because it is used in the financial industry.

The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is it helps our delivery team to make policies and rules for application.

The user interface of F5 BIG-IP LTM is old and could improve.

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) for approximately five years.

I rate the stability of F5 BIG-IP LTM a nine out of ten.

The scalability of F5 BIG-IP LTM is good.

This solution is best suited for medium to large-sized businesses in the finance and telecommunications industries.

I rate the scalability of F5 BIG-IP LTM a nine out of ten.

The support from F5 BIG-IP LTM is not good.

I rate the support from F5 BIG-IP LTM a five out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of F5 BIG-IP LTM is simple because our project is not complicated. The implementation took approximately three days.

I rate the initial setup of F5 BIG-IP LTM a seven out of ten.

The price of F5 BIG-IP LTM could improve.

I rate the scalability of F5 BIG-IP LTM a ten out of ten.

This is a good solution, but it is expensive. I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate F5 BIG-IP LTM an eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager are high availability for applications and SSL offload certificates.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager helps reduce our downtime for maintenance purposes. It also offers us ease of use for the deployment of certificates onto a central location, as opposed to individual nodes.

The feature I find the most valuable is the support infrastructure.

I would like to see tighter integration with all the product lines. A more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users. 

It would also be great if the solution was less expensive. 

I have been using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager for more than 15 years. 

I think it is very stable. 

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very scalable. We have quite a few people using it within our organization, from admins to vice presidents. Maintenance is also very minimal. 

Prior to using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager, I used Cisco's and Nortel's versions. 

How straightforward the initial setup depends on the build. Overall, on a scale from one to five, with one being complex, and five being straightforward, I would give F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager a four. It might take us two or three months to get everything up and built.

We implemented in-house. 

We have seen a return on investment. 

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is an expensive product. However, the only additional cost we have with it is the yearly support cost. 

We did evaluate other options. Ultimately, we chose F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager because of the user community and the solution's ease of use. 

The advice I would give to others who are looking to implement F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is this: look at their user knowledge base first to see if the solution truly fits what you need.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager a nine.