We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."Being a public entity and having a public website which is highly visible with a lot of traffic, we are a target for DDoS. Within the last year, we have had a couple of DDoS attacks which could have affected our web traffic and taken down certain parts of our website. This did not happen because the A10 was able to mitigate the attacks using rate limiting that can be configured for DDoS mitigation on the box."
"We have two appliances and I'm able to move my application from one appliance to another. I don't have to move my whole A10 to be active on the other side or to be passive on the other side. If an application is having a problem, I can just move it using a command."
"It helps with the efficiency of application deployments and data security."
"A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"A10 Networks Thunder ADC is an easy-to-use and flexible solution."
"The Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) is simple to use."
"The SLB and GSLB load balancing are the most valuable features. They meet our need to do server-side load balancing and global site load balancing so we can distribute traffic, not only intra-data center, but inter-data center."
"Feature-wise, A10 Networks Thunder ADC is better for troubleshooting...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"It has so many features. First of all, it has a full proxy architecture, it has multiple modules. The best feature is the WAF, the web application firewall module. It also has cashing type capabilities. It has all kinds of load-balancing algorithms based on your IT requirements."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"There is a lot of documentation available."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"LTM."
"The tech support we got from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager directly was pretty good."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It scaled well for our numbers, up to 3 million subscribers for our most crowded region but I would like to see the same scalability numbers for the virtualized version as well."
"The costs can be quite high."
"The setup depends on certain situations. In certain scenarios, it may be more complex than others. For example, while the initial configuration may be easy, the environment itself may be complex and that may limit the ease of deployment. It is easy for those who understand their environment."
"The tool's load-balancing feature should improve."
"They need to make the user interface (GUI) a bit more usable and intuitive. Some features can be a little difficult to find at times. Sometimes, the workflow in the GUI doesn't match the workflow of an actual workflow. E.g., if I want to create a load balancer application, sometimes you've got to do things a bit out of order in the GUI in order to make it work right."
"The solution should add automation features in the next release."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"The web interface could be better."
"The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization. It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"I would like to see F-5 implement a regular routing like in other Linux-based devices. When we try and integrate in some complex networks, we have to use some additional routing scenarios from a Layer 3 perspective, then we have some problems. It would be great if this were fixed somehow."
"The initial setup can take a long time."
"The UI could be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". 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". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Radware Alteon, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.