We performed a comparison between Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure Active Directory is the preferred solution over F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager due to its advanced security features, customizable options, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. While F5 BIG-IP APM is noted for its reliability and stability, it is considered complex and costly, with room for improvement in reporting and management. Azure AD offers a more feature-rich solution with better integration options and a user-friendly management interface, along with a free basic tier and flexible pricing options, making it a better value for the money compared to F5 BIG-IP APM.
"The performance of the solution is 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."
"The portal access was very good."
"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."
"This is a product that is easy to install and integrate, and it is simple to use."
"The product allows us to create customized portals for your users."
"It is very simple. The Active Directory functions are very easy for us. Its integration with anything is very easy. We can easily do third-party multifactor authentication."
"We use Verified ID to select and deselect users. During the pandemic, we had many users who left our organization or were no longer involved in certain projects but had their user credentials with them. To prevent data loss and data piracy, we deselected those remote users from Active Directory, and it was a very quick process."
"The most valuable feature is Conditional Access, and we use it extensively."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to set up conditional access, where you can enforce users to connect using multifactor authentication."
"The boards for task tracking are a valuable feature."
"The solution has some great features, such as identity governance, and user self-service. The Outlook application is very good and is used by a lot of people even if they are using Google services."
"The security and compliance features are very helpful. The online information on the site is well documented."
"It's a very scalable solution."
"The solution is quite costly."
"The price of this product can be improved."
"We do not have knowledgeable support teams locally."
"The solution’s GUI looks very old."
"The initial setup was complex."
"In my opinion, the GUI side needs some improvement based on my usage. Sometimes, it doesn't work as efficiently as the CLI side."
"Integrating identity providers and single sign-on solutions can simplify user authentication and access control."
"The operational deployment is not great."
"I think the solution can improve by making the consumption of that data easier for our customers."
"The security policy of Azure Active Directory should be based on a matrix so that we can easily visualize which users have access to what."
"There is no documentation about how Microsoft will scale Azure AD for customers. It only mentions that it will scale out if you have a lot of requests but does not mention how in detail."
"Initially, we wanted to exclude specific users from MSA. So, we had a condition policy, which forces MSA for all the users. So we wanted to exclude users who are using an NPS extension. So it was not listed, as a NPS extension was not listed outside an application, in actual, so, we go back and were not able to exclude users using NPS extension from MSA. So that was one limitation that we found and we had to work around that."
"The licensing cost is a bit prohibitive."
"Microsoft should work on enhancing its machine-learning algorithm to prevent unnecessary lockouts of users."
"The synchronization between my AD and Azure AD needs improvement."
"Customers should be informed that public review features are not intended for production use."
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 6th in Access Management with 13 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Access Management with 190 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6. 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 Microsoft Entra ID writes "Saves us time and money and features Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA". 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 Aruba ClearPass, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ping Identity Platform and Okta Workforce Identity. See our F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Access Management 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.