We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."F5 Advanced WAF helps our engineers to learn the complete configuration, including fundamental and advanced policies."
"I like them because I like the security solution. They get extra marks compared to other solutions or competitors. There are more features than any other product I can think of. They're always monitoring, and the security features offer more than other, lesser products."
"The initial setup was was easy to install."
"There are a lot of good features."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the WAF protection, Data Safe, and the seven-layer DDoS."
"It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements."
"F5 Advanced WAF secures our connectivity and combines both the main functions of WAF (balancing and web application security)."
"Good dashboard and reporting."
"We use it to secure VMs and applications. It protects against DDoS attacks. It's very user-friendly."
"The product is easy to configure."
"The fact that I can log into the platform and see everybody, see logs, authentication failure, and see everything on one platform, is the most valuable feature."
"The machine learning on FortiWeb WAF is valuable."
"The tool secures our critical applications, especially the mobile money application, which is often targeted by attacks. The solution provides rapid protection and has proven reliable against various threats."
"It is good for web tracking applications."
"The tool's HTTP traffic, website fixing, and blocking are fantastic. It is user-friendly with easy configuration."
"The platform's stability is good."
"We get false positives sometimes."
"One thing that can be improved, is to increase the quantity over predefine policy."
"Scalability could be improved."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"I think the deployment templates can be better."
"The solution is tedious. It takes a lot of discrete settings so one needs to get detailed and granular when they use the solution. It takes you a whole lot of energy and concentration to configure. It needs to be much more straight-forward, like other web solutions."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve on its funding for WAF features. There is a need to be more advanced WAF features."
"It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device. F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) needs to update its attack prevention database."
"We have encountered issues with webhooks and management of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's on-premise version."
"The product lacks features offered by enterprise-level firewall tools."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall needs to improve its performance."
"The product is complicated to set up."
"The documentation is poor."
"The technical support team is bad."
"WAF needs more signatures on FortiWeb and updates the database continuously to protect against new attacks."
More FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is ranked 16th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 13 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of F5 Advanced WAF writes "Flexible configuration, reliable, and highly professional support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) writes "Protects internal applications and prevents target attacks ". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiWeb, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), whereas FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) is most compared with Azure Front Door. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.
