We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Perimeter 81 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"I think F5's tech support may be better than Citrix's because they mainly focus on the ADC product, but Citrix support covers Hypervisor, XenMobile, FAS, and ADC. And from my experience, sometimes, we face some issues that Citrix cannot handle."
"It provides first-tier firewalling, for you application. And it provides server load-balancing, it provides optimization, and it provides a proxy feature, where your users cannot directly access your server. It acts as a fully proxy architecture. It has client-side and server-side connections, both, and they're separate."
"It is an easy way to build application policies (graphical)."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) improves the resilience and quality of the application itself, the speed and the user experience for the application. The data that the users need from the application is actually acquired faster. So, it provides faster data acquisition."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"I have found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) to be stable."
"The ease of use not only translates to quick adoption rates - it also ensures that our employees remain compliant with our cybersecurity protocols, enhancing the overall security posture of our organization."
"Distributing the agent was very simple, allowing us to enforce security posture on our devices (i.e. S1, Disk-encryption, etc.)."
"It has provided a seamless gateway to much-needed platforms."
"It keeps us all accountable and ensures secure internet connections while we all work remotely."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Their split tunneling feature has been very valuable to our company since implementing the Perimeter 81 solution."
"Scaling Perimeter 81 was easy to do."
"Even after restarting, it tries to quickly reestablish connection which is very helpful."
"There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues not affecting production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. An ordeal for the manager."
"My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey."
"The GUI needs improvement."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will are challenging for us."
"The deployment could be simplified."
"If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"It would be nice to have a notification sound when Perimeter81 disconnects, as I sometimes don't notice when the icon shows that it's disconnected, and I end up wasting time waiting for my browser to load a page that shows an error, usually error 404."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"What would be useful would be a notification/warning that a session is due to timeout after exceeding the default connection limit."
"There is a very small amount of downtime."
"I would suggest adding more networking and security features that allow more customization within their platform."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"Currently, I am not able to define a different country or location, which can result in negative experiences as the tool is being recognized by websites and this can make it difficult to access them or force me to disable the program temporarily."
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 116 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 6th in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) with 22 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. 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 Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". 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, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Tailscale.
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.
