We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Fortinet FortiADC based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"There were a lot of good features. The most beneficial for maintaining server health included the algorithms for the virtual IP, which segment traffic between servers, authentication profiles, and many other things."
"The value and impact of using F5 BIG-IP LTM for application delivery control in our organization are significant."
"Stable and scalable network traffic management solution for applications. It has good performance."
"The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium."
"iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is good."
"I am impressed with the product's load-balancing feature."
"The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"Content caching and content compression are good features."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"Simple to use and easy to integrate."
"The GSLB, the DR side, is the best part. Because we had our main side in one city, we created another, and we had a complete MPLS over the internet. We used the GSLB and data loss for our business applications."
"They need to develop the reporting tools further."
"The synchronization does works fairly well. However, if I were to make changes, I would make it easier to start the sync process."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface."
"I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"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."
"The solution's hardware quality needs improvement."
"I had a terrible experience with Fortinet support. I only used support once when I bought the solution. I got no response for two days. However, I believe that it's no longer the case. Fortinet solutions have problems when they're launched. For example, we had issues with Fortinet's authenticator when it came out. We also had trouble with FortiNAC in the beginning."
"Setup could be easier. The company's homework is to redesign those menus to configure with the smallest number of steps."
"Fortinet FortiADC should include an advanced-level SD-WAN."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"The product's stability for VMs could be better."
"Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale."
"The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 117 reviews while Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and HAProxy, whereas Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Loadbalancer.org. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Fortinet FortiADC report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
