We performed a comparison between Check Point Remote Access VPN and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Remote Access solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Check Point Remote Access VPN enables us to access on-premise applications while working from remote locations."
"Once we install and connect the VPN service, it keeps on running until we disconnect."
"The policies are easy to use."
"To maintain the authorization of the connected user, Check Point provides multi-factor authentication for an RA VPN client to make sure legitimate users have access to resources."
"It is easy to install the Endpoint Remote Access VPN client to different platforms."
"It offers a simple configuration and setup."
"Among its most valuable features is how it quickly and easily connects everyone to the VPN service."
"Our number of users working remotely vastly increased during the COVID 19 pandemic. Check Point Remote Access VPN allowed us to quickly make the transition from in-office to remote work."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"You can create multiple virtual servers on F5 BIG-IP technology, and within multiple virtual servers you can have multiple nodes, where a node equals two application servers."
"iRule feature is useful."
"It improves the overall performance of applications by decreasing the burden on servers associated with managing and maintaining applications and network sessions, as well as by performing application-specific tasks."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"I was able to simply and quickly set up the WAF rules and security, and also set up easily complex policies and rules which gave me some great features to redirect."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"The most valuable features are the WAF and the big IP."
"When you need to create something, you have to follow many steps and I think that should be simplified."
"Connection of devices from various locations is efficient though there are a few challenges when there is a network failure."
"The authentication that we handle is through a .p12 certificate, however, we have integrated it with a 2MFA service through another provider. Something that could improve Check Point is if it had its own 2MFA service through a blade or some sort of application."
"Sometimes we have some small problems with Check Point Remote Access VPN. For example, problems with authentication."
"The Linux version may have an app (similar to Windows) instead of a shell script."
"The connection has gotten less smooth as the number of users increases. The issue is that the logs fill up quickly. Too many users are connecting remotely. It worked great when we only had a few remote connections. Now, it is disconnecting people and dropping the internet connection."
"Improvements for Check Point Remote Access VPN could include enhancing mobile connectivity for a smoother user experience."
"They need to increase their timeout. Right now, it will fail after ten seconds, however, it shouldn't fail until after 20 seconds."
"If we decide to migrate to the cloud, I don't think that BIG-IP is a good solution and we probably won't use it."
"The solution is scalable."
"Technical support could be improved."
"We would like to have integration into encryption and PKI integration with SafeNet. That is probably the key component in using External PKIs, letting people bring their PKIs with them."
"F5 BIG-IP LTM can improve on the SSL loading which includes the authentication of certificates. Although, most of these issues have been solved there are still some issue that persists."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version."
"Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved."
More Check Point Remote Access VPN Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Remote Access VPN is ranked 5th in Remote Access with 61 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Check Point Remote Access VPN is rated 8.8, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Check Point Remote Access VPN writes "Is easy to use and has a nice interface, but the scalability needs to improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". Check Point Remote Access VPN is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client, Check Point Harmony Mobile, Fortinet FortiClient and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Check Point Remote Access VPN vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
We monitor all Remote Access 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.