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."It is easy to obtain dashboard compliance because security policy views are included."
"The product has valuable features for load balancing, monitoring tools, and HPXpress services."
"F5's user-friendly interface and seamless integration stand out as the most valuable features for us."
"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."
"The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are the overall capabilities, there is not a comparable solution on the market."
"It is also quite intuitive and user-friendly. They have several webinars that are actually like labs. You can use these webinars to learn about how to use all features of the product."
"The most valuable feature is that it is secure."
"The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features."
"The initial setup was easy since it was possible to get remote support for the product."
"The machine learning feature reduces the false positives."
"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 most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtration, web filter, application filter, and IPS."
"It is good for web tracking applications."
"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."
"The tool's HTTP traffic, website fixing, and blocking are fantastic. It is user-friendly with easy configuration."
"For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees."
"The deployment side is quite complex."
"F5 Advanced needs to improve its bot protection. The solution needs to have machine learning to learn the behavior of the customer to recognize the human versus the bot. This is a difficult feature to explain to our customers. I would like documentation about the bot feature to make it easier for the customer to understand."
"I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"The solution should include RASP for another level of protection at the code itself."
"Nevertheless, F5 products are generally considered to be hard to deploy."
"One area for improvement in the product is its SSO integration, which posed challenges and required significant effort to resolve."
"We have encountered issues with webhooks and management of FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's on-premise version."
"The documentation is poor."
"There is room for improvement in pricing, and actually, the price is a bit higher because on the same terms I purchased, the support subscription is so high."
"The product is complicated to set up."
"There is room for improvement in the support. The response time could be faster. Plus, they ask for a lot of information. It is not easy to get support."
"FortiWeb Web Application Firewall's signature database updates could be improved."
"WAF needs more signatures on FortiWeb and updates the database continuously to protect against new attacks."
"The technical support team is bad."
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.
