We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."The product is quite flexible."
"Tech support has been very quick to respond to all of the needs that we've had. If you want ad-hoc support. They also provide professional services that you can purchase as well."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is good."
"It makes the publishing of applications to the Internet safer."
"The solution is easy to install. It's a straightforward process."
"In my team, we work in a very agile environment and the solutions from BIG-IP, including BIG-IP WAF, suit us well when developing and serving our applications."
"Our experience has been very good, in terms of performance, and securing our application infrastructure."
"Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule."
"The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is the categorization of the dynamic URLs which keeps the customer's environment protected. The threats and the malware are correctly categorized."
"The scalability of the solution is great."
"The user interface of Zscaler Private Access is excellent. With proper knowledge and expertise, one can efficiently handle intricate enterprise environments without feeling overwhelmed. This leads to exceptional productivity for managed service providers. The user experience is remarkably streamlined, enabling the management of even the most complex enterprise setups without any excessive complications."
"The most valuable feature is the manageability of the micro tunnels."
"The most valuable features of Zscaler Private Access are its ability to integrate with multiple IDPs and application segmentation."
"Sandboxing, DLP, and SSL inspection engine are the most valuable features of Zscaler SASE."
"The ZPA is a unique feature which offers VPN along with all the additional security needed."
"The most valuable features are the File Type Control and SSL bypass policies. We"
"I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome."
"The solution could improve the documentation."
"The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"Security enhancement should be more user friendly."
"The price for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very high. This aspect could be improved."
"A more intuitive interface would be helpful."
"The menu for the ZIA portal could be organized a little bit differently. The most-used modules should be at the top of the menus, not somewhere near the bottom, some of them are not organized well in my opinion."
"The granularity in blocking is not sufficient, as new domains are automatically blocked for 30 days without further information."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It has massive room for improvement. The Zscaler product itself is okay, but it doesn't give enough granularity for us as an organization to stipulate rules or processes, especially for data-driven services. For instance, we can stick on SSL inspection, but it's just a click box. It doesn't allow us to go any further into the detail of the SSL inspection. We also can't pull it out without having an additional logging server. It just doesn't give us enough granularity. They should give us more control over the interfaces because it is all backend. They weren't very open to discussing their backend architecture with us in terms of their own data centers. They can maybe a little bit more open about what components are there and how the backend infrastructure works alongside Zscaler. Its licensing can be better. Some of the additional licensing costs are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Their support should also be improved. I initially had a consultant from Zscaler for its deployment, but the support that I had throughout the deployment of the project wasn't the best."
"There is improvement in enhancing proper manageability, policies, and logs. So, log management could be improved."
"What could be improved in Zscaler Private Access is its notification. For example, if there's a speed issue, there should be a pop-up that alerts the user about it. If there is a network quality issue, for example, it isn't good enough to connect to, or the network quality is bad, there should be a notification from the solution. Zscaler Private Access also needs improvement in terms of its interface and security."
"The stability could be improved."
"Users report application access or latency issues with Zscaler Private Access."
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 Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is ranked 1st in ZTNA as a Service with 34 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is rated 8.4. 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 Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange writes "Allows for strict access control, granting access to specific applications at a URL level rather than at the physical IP level". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Barracuda Load Balancer ADC, whereas Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange is most compared with Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Axis Security, Cloudflare Access and Perimeter 81.
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.
