We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and Forescout Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"The most valuable feature is the virtual IP creation. It's our most frequently used feature."
"Stickiness is the most valuable feature of the product."
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"The load balancing features are valuable."
"Our customers have never complained about the stability"
"We have seen a return on investment from F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager. It provided access at a time when we didn't have it."
"Forescout Platform has made it possible to block people working near our construction sites who should not have access to our network."
"Emergency response, risk assessment information to get a view of the of the vulnerability."
"Provides a good overview of all devices on a network."
"Ease of deployment There's a great support team that becomes actively engaged whenever we encounter issues. Their technical support is amazing. Good documentation is available. The product is stable. The solution is highly scalable. I recommend using the solution because it gives verified control over the environment. It has a great visibility feature."
"The most valuable feature of the Forescout Platform is the large capacity it can handle. Additionally, the interface of the platform is good."
"The solution's implementation and operation are very easy."
"Its feature that I have found most valuable is that it is very granular. You can configure granular controls just as you want those policies to be implemented. It gives you that flexibility to go granular in how you want your controls to be implemented. That's something I like about it."
"Within three or four days, we have complete visibility of your infrastructure on the network. Compared to other solutions, the deployment of the solution is easier and we can close the project quickly."
"Integrating identity providers and single sign-on solutions can simplify user authentication and access control."
"I'd suggest improved documentation integration directly within the GUI. Right now, finding comprehensive documentation often requires going to external websites like the community portal."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"The price of this product can be improved."
"F5 BIG-IP APM disconnects when you leave it for long enough, but that is natural for IT solutions to do. That's a little bit frustrating."
"The solution is quite costly."
"The solution’s GUI looks very old."
"The operational deployment is not great."
"The solution does have a bit of complexity, and there's some complexity in the deployment. Users need to be trained before undertaking an initial setup."
"If older network devices are used there can be some compatibility issues while using the Forescout Platform. Additionally, if the switches that are deployed in your infrastructure are not captured properly to the endpoints there might be some difficulties with Forescout Platform trying to monitor the network traffic. Traffic management is an area the vendor should work on."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The installation is not secure because it takes high admin privileges."
"It's scalable, but not without a big investment. It doesn't do so well at the branch. At the home office, it does okay and not so well at the branch."
"They need to handle their Tier 1 cases differently. The biggest negative regarding Forescout is their support. Not having the ability to get instantly transferred to a support engineer for Tier 1 cases is pretty ridiculous."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"Initially, the implementation of the Forescout Platform took some time to figure out. The reason is we are a manufacturing unit and we have certain silos that are insulated areas where certain systems will not connect to the internet or to the LAN. Since there are many parts of it, we have to have an inclusive view of all those systems. It took a while for us to initially implement, but after a few months, everything worked well."
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 6th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews while Forescout Platform is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2, while Forescout Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) writes " Facilitates packet inspection, modification, and offloading and offers visibility and troubleshooting capabilities, allowing for pre-production server testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is most compared with Citrix Gateway, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ivanti Connect Secure, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Armis. See our F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. Forescout Platform report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.
