F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Reviews

The product can be used for many applications including load balancing and GLB's overload balancing. It depends on the module. If there's a public APM you can use it for WAF and many other use-cases. 

The performance of the product is great. 

We enjoy its overall ease of use.

It's relatively easy to configure. There's a certain level of fine-grain configurations that you can perform.

The solution is very stable.

We've found the product to be quite scalable.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive.

It would be ideal if they offered integration with NGINX. They purchased NGINX as well. Therefore, if it's got integration with NGINX, then you kind of have one single pane of a console for all the F5/NGINX portions of your work. 

I've been using the solution for six years. It's been a while.

The stability is very good. The performance is reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. We don't find there are a lot of bugs or glitches. 

The scalability is great. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We have about 2,500 users on it currently.

We do plan to increase usage in the near future.

We've used technical support in the past and have been satisfied with the level of attention we receive. They are helpful and responsive. 

The installation process is not overly complex or difficult. It's very straightforward and pretty simple. 

The deployment is fast as well. It takes maybe an hour to an hour and a half to set everything up. 

We have two people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance. They are admins.

I handled the installation myself. I did not need the assistance of any integrator or consultant. It was all handled in-house. 

The solution could work at lowering its prices a bit.

The licensing needs to be a bit more flexible.

We pay our licensing fees on a yearly basis. 

We did evaluate other solutions before choosing this product. However, it was a long time ago. I can't recall the products we looked at. One might have been Barracuda.

We're a customer and a partner of F5.

The product is an on-premise virtual edition solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been mostly quite happy with it so far.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. Our experience has been a positive one. 

I am not the F5 administrator so I don't use all of the features. I primarily perform daily operations such as checking statistics and deploying new virtual servers.

Our deployment is not very complicated, from my point of view. The HTTP and HTTPS load balancing mechanisms are the core functionality for me. I have done things like created new virtual servers, changed the load balancing, and looked at statistics, but I have not looked into the security features, API gateways, and other features because that is the responsibility of other departments. As a pure network engineer, I think the box is performing very well.

I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing. As long as you know what you're doing, it does everything you want it to do.

Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved.

I have been working with F5 BIG-IP for the past two years.

My experience with technical support has come from two or three tickets that I have raised over the past two years. I would rate them a six or seven out of ten. I'm not sure if my colleagues have faced the same issues, but I have experienced delays in response, especially when I opened a case for iRules. It took them about a month and a half to get me to the point.

One of the reasons it took as long was because they considered this to be a problem for professional services, and not technical support. As such, it was not marked as urgent.

F5 was the first load balancer that I worked on.

The provisioning of the box from A to Z is of medium difficulty. It is not very complicated, nor very easy. I would rate it a seven out of ten in terms of provisioning it for the first time.

Compared to using open-source products, the prices are not cheap.

Although we are happy with F5, we are currently evaluating NGINX and Kemp LoadMaster because our F5 boxes are approaching end-of-life. We are running them as demos, conducting a PoC for each to test and see how they run in our environment. There are several things that I have yet to test with these other products.

My understanding is that the support packages and the boxes themselves are not very cheap.

If ultimately we find that the other solutions do not meet our requirements then we will be renewing our service with F5. 

To this point, whatever we have needed has been available out-of-the-box. In our environment, we have not experienced limitations.

In summary, we are happy with the product and for me, it's ideal for HTTP and HTTPS.

Performance-wise, stability-wise, and feature-wise, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for load balancing any kind of HTTP and HTTPS traffic coming from users or other systems.

One of the greatest things about F5 Load Balancer is that it provides additional capability for handling huge workloads and routing them to an SAP or non-SAP application. It is capable of supporting a large amount of user workload and application connectivity workload. This was the main reason why we chose F5.

It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

Its stability is good.

It is scalable. We have around 2,000 plus users.

Their technical support is fine. 

It is a hardware load balancer, so its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. You need specific hardware to install this load balancer.

We had evaluated a few SAP solutions, but we found F5 to be more suitable at that time.

I would recommend this solution. We have been using it for such a long time, and we are quite happy with it as an organization. It is awesome, and we plan to keep using it till we are on-prem. It has been good for our on-prem setup. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. I am quite satisfied with this solution.

We are using it for web application firewall and load balancing features. We have its latest version.

It is stable.

Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy.

I have been using this solution for a couple of months.

It is stable.

It is not scalable. We have about 2,000 users in our organization.

I don't have any experience with their technical support.

We didn't use any other product.

It is neither easy nor complex. It needs experience. Fortinet is easier to deploy than this.

I did it myself. We have an IT team of 60 people.

I would recommend this solution. We plan to keep using it. 

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

We are using this solution as a load balancer and reverse proxy.

The most valuable feature is customization.

We are currently using BIG-IP and NetScaler and we wanted to have just one technology. We will be replacing F5 in March.

NetScaler is primarily used for Citrix purposes and BIG-IP is being used as a reverse proxy for our other applications.  We would like to manage it easily with one technology.

I would like to see better integration. I can remember when we were implementing ADFS, we had some challenges.

There is not a lot of documentation available where you can refer to and configure any new technologies.

I have been working with F5 BIG-IP for approximately seven years but our organization has been using this solution for 13 years.

This solution is stable. We have not experienced any issues.

It's a scalable solution and we have not had any limitations. We have approximately 3,000 users.

Technical support is very good in terms of their technical knowledge and assistance.

We have had contact with both F5 and Citrix. 

F5 has a good technical team who can assist and understand the problem and respond quickly. However, Citrix has been a challenge for us.

When we were setting up for Azure we had some challenges.

We have an internal team of two for maintenance and reporting.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I need to have a deeper understanding of F5 technology.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are in the security business, basically working in two segments; the first is in the financial sector, with the largest banks in the country, and second, we work with some government organizations and corporate businesses. Only B2B for now, not much retail. We have a few projects in insurance companies. The solution is deployed on-premise in our office and we basically use it for demo and testing purposes. We deploy for our customers both on-premise and on cloud. We are a distribution channel, like a reseller. I'm a channel development manager.

For BIG-IP, I think the most requested functionality is its NetFlow balancing and traffic balancing, as well as its secure access and its optimization of access to applications. The solution is the most requested by our customers, so it's an important direction for our business.

I'd like to see a more intuitive interface. The market now is moving into salvage services, different kinds of services, not only hardware solutions. 

I've been using the solution for four months. 

The product is scalable, we have around 200 users in our company. In terms of our customers, there would probably be over 1,000 users.  We have a huge company, but our department for network security products consists of about 25 people. In half of them, users are the technical specialists.

We're just starting to work on setting up our own support service for clients. We hope that maybe next year we could add support products to our product line also.

We have other vendors in our portfolio, all of them working for performance network, performance optimization, and application implementation. We generally propose a few solutions to our customers. 

We have a technical department with a lot of certified specialists who work on the implementation side of things and we also support some of our departments and external clients. It's not my area of expertise. 

We are planning to expand to other segments in the market, healthcare or logistics or even some FMCG retail companies. We hope the F5 solutions will help us to expand. We intend to continue providing this solution and to involve more partners in the F5 business. I would recommend this solution. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

The F5 is something we purchased for another project that has not been turned on just yet.

The solution is very powerful.

The product is quite flexible. 

The horizontal scalability that is on offer is very good as well.

I would like to see some better documentation focused on our website and better search criteria. That's probably the best way to say that there needs to help with research.

The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable.

We were originally supposed to launch this project for a client, however, that hasn't materialized yet.

While we never really got around to scaling the solution just yet, there is horizontal scalability that is on offer that seems very good.

This is being deployed in a service provider environment. Therefore, it'll be impactful to all of our customers. However, I would say as far as internal support users, we have a team of probably ten that'll be supporting this product once it's launched in production.

In terms of technical support, so far it has been pretty good. That said, it's more to set up the solution versus actual production support. They're not helping us deal with bugs or glitches, they've just been helping us with a rather complex implementation. We've been satisfied with their assistance in that sense. They seem knowledgeable and responsive.

The initial setup is largely complex. However, we had a lot of help from their internal sales team or support team has been important in terms of working around the difficulties.

We have a staff of ten that are handling deployment and maintenance. They're not dedicated just to this product, however. They support our overall service provider architecture.

The cost is quite high. The long-term support in particular is quite high.

Customers need to be aware that each feature is licensable, which allows costs to accrue.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with F5.

The F5 is something we purchased for another project that has not yet been turned up. That said, the experience I've had with F5 has been very positive, specifically working directly with their corporate sales engineering team. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the high cost of the product, I might rate it a bit higher.

I would advise those considering the solution to explore all options. Specifically, the total cost of ownership. It can be lower with some other vendors. A10 is oftentimes a lower cost of ownership. One challenge with F5 is everything is a licensable feature. Whereas something like an A10 is not. You see the same challenges with a Cisco type of device as well, however, it's in a different arena, with different products.

The anti-bot protection is very good. They are able to see bots from their system quite well. It has helped our customers to filter real traffic from fake and allows the real traffic to access the application. With the profile provided, you can block many new scans and scripts that are constantly generating traffic to their web service.

When you create an autofile, its profile takes a long time to generate the view in the VIP. That is probably due to the performance of the device, however, when you load a specific profile, the browser takes more than one minute to show the information. 

The web interface could be better.

The solution should allow for the creation of custom signatures. Right now, I see that can be a little bit complicated to create new or personal signatures in the VIP.

The way that policies are created should make it easier to maintain the solution. 

The product needs to implement some kind of artificial intelligence or machine learning that can start to generate fewer false positive requests. We tend to have a lot of false positives. The policy should be created in such a way as to help lower false positives.

There should be better reporting. Our customers ask us for reports quite often. It would be ideal if the solution itself was able to generate various types of reports for them instead. 

I've been working with the solution since 2014.

This year, we had a couple of issues. We found some bugs in version 15. They are very good, however, at finding the issue and generating a hotfix quickly so that we can apply the hotfix to the device. In the general, I would say that version 15 has been very stable overall.

Whether you can scale easily or not depends on the device and the sizing. For example, if you have an E 2000 or I 4000, you might have a lot of traffic and the device cannot handle it very well. Scalability with the performance was the one issue that affected us this year.

Most of the customers that we have are enterprises. They are banking and insurance customers. They're quite large, which is why we need the scalability that we do.

We always use technical support and the team helps us very well. They're able to effectively find and fix issues and they respond very quickly. We're quite satisfied with their level of service overall.

We also work with Palo Alto firewalls. I've worked with Check Point as well.

The initial setup is not too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

It's straightforward to create a new policy or a new postulate or a new deployment. It takes a couple of minutes to create a new deployment and it's rather easy to do so.

We're a reseller for Enterprise companies such as Banking and Retail.

I'd advise that if a customer wants to implement this product, that they find a partner they can have a strong relationship with. The partner needs to be able to effectively implement the product and train your staff on the proper usage. That is, of course, if the client wants to manage it themselves in the long run.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If they could improve their web interface, generate reports, and have all the configuration on a single page on the platform, I'd rank it a bit higher.