We performed a comparison between F5 Advanced WAF and Fortinet FortiWeb based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: F5 Advanced WAF has an edge over Fortinet FortiWeb in this comparison. According to reviews, it has more advanced features than Fortinet FortiWeb. In addition, it received better marks in the ROI category.
"iRules are quite appealing when it comes to F5."
"We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country. It has a replication feature. Licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license."
"Identification, ease of use, and ease of modifying it to most of our needs are valuable."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution."
"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."
"Good technology for mitigating different application attacks, e.g. DDoS, DNS, and layer seven attacks."
"I like the security features, especially against SQL injection."
"It's flexible and powerful, and the users can input their own rules to the system."
"It offers some feedback and suggestions that guide our system development while helping our vendors to update their applications and fix any issues or bugs."
"Provides good vulnerability scanning, IPS, and geolocalization."
"FortiWeb's ease of deployment is what we liked the most about it. Implementing FortiWeb was extremely fast and easy, which was a significant advantage. It comes with several preconfigured rule sets and templates."
"Auto Learn feature: Makes policy additions or deletions for my customers very simple"
"The WAF profiles has been effective at mitigating web-based threats."
"It is easy to install and to maintain."
"It helps us prevent attacks on servers."
"The GUI makes it easy to scale in terms of learning and utilization."
"The user interface (UI) seems a bit outdated. Making it more user-friendly would be beneficial."
"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."
"This solution can be made more user-friendly."
"The reporting portion of F5 Advance WAF is not great. They need to work out something better, as it is very basic. You only see the top IPs, I think there is more they can offer."
"The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"Compatibility with multiple cloud environments needs improvement. Both stability and scalability need to be improved."
"F5 Advanced WAF needs better integration within the application, like remote dashboards."
"We would like the interface to be easier to use and more user-friendly. The interface needs to be enhanced."
"The dashboard evaluating the performance of each application connected to the web app's firewall is quite helpful, but the tool is only available in application performance management. So I think if Fortinet could better integrate that particular feature, it would add a lot of value to the product."
"It would also be helpful if they could introduce easier reporting. It's good to have those reports that go to C-level management, and Fortinet does provide some graphs, but if they went into some more detail, that would be great."
"The solution is rather complicated. If you know what to do, it's not bad, but it's complicated for a first time user to configure the solution. What I'd like to improve are the custom signatures."
"The solution could have more customization."
"FortiWeb needs to have support for the newest technology being used in web applications."
"No solution is 100% secure and the security could always be worked on."
"Fortinet FortiWeb could improve in reference architecture for different deployment scenarios."
F5 Advanced WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 55 reviews while Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews. F5 Advanced WAF is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiWeb 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 Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". F5 Advanced WAF is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, AWS WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. See our F5 Advanced WAF vs. Fortinet FortiWeb 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.
