Vice President at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
2023-05-10T07:22:00Z
May 10, 2023
Currently, the solution's WAF features are fewer. They should consider increasing their WAF features. Also, for better customization, they can improve the WAF features. I would like to see better customization in the future release of the solution. The performance of multiple boxes in the solution regarding memory and caches needs to be improved.
I'm not sure what improvements can be made. I'm a reseller. I don't deal with the solution directly. We've had a customer that wanted to use an IPsec VPN and we haven't been able to put the two together. The license does not come along with it, so you have to purchase everything separately. The costs can be quite high.
Team Lead - Network and Security at Connex Information Technologies
Reseller
Top 5
2022-07-26T05:23:00Z
Jul 26, 2022
A10 Networks Thunder ADC could improve on the Application Delivery Controller. it's not a fully-fledged web application firewall solution. For example, application data and support need to improve.
Network Consultant at a aerospace/defense firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Consultant
2021-06-23T12:27:57Z
Jun 23, 2021
There are competitors that have more features. In a future release, I would like to see VAS, application policy management, profiling, and the SSL encryption and decryption features should be on the system instead of having a separate SSLi system. Additionally, they should combine the products into one solution instead of having separate products, such as encryption and decryption, and load balancing.
Team Lead - Network and Security at Connex Information Technologies
Reseller
Top 5
2020-11-16T08:20:00Z
Nov 16, 2020
The interface and integrated custom applications can be a bit difficult. They need to be improved. In the next release, I would like to see improvements with the integration.
Senior Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2020-09-15T11:13:34Z
Sep 15, 2020
Everybody says Network Thunder works as advertised. It is just one of those things that actually performs as advertised. I take no news as good news. I do not really have any negatives. We usually like to get well-balanced reviews from people who have experience with the product and especially from the vendors themselves. As far as improvements, that may be different than things that are missing or broken. I just do not have any cons. I do not have any glaringly big needs for additions either. One thing that might be improved is the interface. I think it is pretty straightforward. It is just not the prettiest, but it is functional. That is getting pretty granular. Maybe one concrete thing that they can improve on is their two-factor authentication. Just do something to make the native solution more robust. That would probably be the one thing that I have heard mentioned. They have basic two-factor authentication. It is also nice that they have options for integrating with other two-factor products. The problem with that is that then you have to buy two products and license two solutions. One customer made a comment saying that it would be nice if we only had to buy one product to take care of the whole solution. In other words, they thought it would be better to just be able to buy the A10 and not buy two products to create the two-factor authentication they would have preferred. That should be something that A10 could at least offer.
We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers.
Network Architect at a retailer with 201-500 employees
Real User
2019-12-19T06:32:00Z
Dec 19, 2019
There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging.
IT Specialist at a university with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2019-10-07T11:49:00Z
Oct 7, 2019
The user interface is what people complain about most of the time, particularly if they don't use it very often. Then they complain that it's a bit clunky. It works from an ADC point of view, but the interface is a bit clunky.
The solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good. It has security features like DDoS and WAF, but they are not updated automatically. If any new vulnerability comes out, you are given an option to update that vulnerability in your system and the actual firewalls. Because, for ADC, this is just an added feature, it's not the main security solution right now. It's not the only security that any company would have. There is an opportunity to modify that and make it better.
The ease of use could have been created better. Some of the UI features are very primitive. Sometimes, wrong entries will go in and stay. I gave this feedback to the team who sold it to me. Also, some things like the traffic flow management take a lot of time to learn to use. While we have mastered using the feature, it doesn't tell us where we are going wrong or if something is breaking. It will start failing if you have a containerized environment, which is why we have to start moving away from using the A10. If they could fix this, that would be good. It would be also be nice if someone could walk me through the solution’s Secure Service Mesh to optimize traffic within Kubernetes and containers, since I am not able to use A10 for rebalancing right now. While I do use the security features on the load balancing, I find them to be primitive.
Senior Network Engineer at a recreational facilities/services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2019-08-30T04:51:00Z
Aug 30, 2019
It's not easy to use (mediocre at best). It's difficult for administrators to maneuver through the web user interface. It should be more intuitive through the web GUI. If you're a command line person, you can get around. However, the web UI is very difficult, and for our operational folks, they need the web UI. The solution’s security features are minimal. I'm not impressed by the DDoS solution. Traffic flow issues are very difficult, as there's no means for us to analyze the traffic coming in or out of the appliance without technical support. They need to improve in-depth diagnostics. I don't know how to do a tcpdump on the appliance. We need to do packet captures on the appliance to analyze what's going through it. Information is not as easy to attain as it is with other vendors. Better diagnostic tools would probably help.
Network Manager at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2019-08-12T05:55:00Z
Aug 12, 2019
They need to make the user interface (GUI) a bit more usable and intuitive. Some features can be a little difficult to find at times. Sometimes, the workflow in the GUI doesn't match the workflow of an actual workflow. E.g., if I want to create a load balancer application, sometimes you've got to do things a bit out of order in the GUI in order to make it work right.
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is a dynamic application delivery controller and advanced load balancer. Thunder ADC is a value-added solution provided by A10 Networks specializing in robust, trusted, scalable application services for cloud, hybrid, edge cloud, and on-premise environments focused on improving business processes and keeping infrastructures safe. The solution consistently provides server availability, improves content delivery, and protects at-risk applications. A10 Networks Thunder...
The product is expensive.
The solution should add automation features in the next release.
The tool's load-balancing feature should improve.
Currently, the solution's WAF features are fewer. They should consider increasing their WAF features. Also, for better customization, they can improve the WAF features. I would like to see better customization in the future release of the solution. The performance of multiple boxes in the solution regarding memory and caches needs to be improved.
A graphical dashboard for analyzing performance is needed. Sometimes, it is necessary to use the CLI to see connections.
I'm not sure what improvements can be made. I'm a reseller. I don't deal with the solution directly. We've had a customer that wanted to use an IPsec VPN and we haven't been able to put the two together. The license does not come along with it, so you have to purchase everything separately. The costs can be quite high.
A10 Networks Thunder ADC could improve on the Application Delivery Controller. it's not a fully-fledged web application firewall solution. For example, application data and support need to improve.
There are competitors that have more features. In a future release, I would like to see VAS, application policy management, profiling, and the SSL encryption and decryption features should be on the system instead of having a separate SSLi system. Additionally, they should combine the products into one solution instead of having separate products, such as encryption and decryption, and load balancing.
The interface and integrated custom applications can be a bit difficult. They need to be improved. In the next release, I would like to see improvements with the integration.
Everybody says Network Thunder works as advertised. It is just one of those things that actually performs as advertised. I take no news as good news. I do not really have any negatives. We usually like to get well-balanced reviews from people who have experience with the product and especially from the vendors themselves. As far as improvements, that may be different than things that are missing or broken. I just do not have any cons. I do not have any glaringly big needs for additions either. One thing that might be improved is the interface. I think it is pretty straightforward. It is just not the prettiest, but it is functional. That is getting pretty granular. Maybe one concrete thing that they can improve on is their two-factor authentication. Just do something to make the native solution more robust. That would probably be the one thing that I have heard mentioned. They have basic two-factor authentication. It is also nice that they have options for integrating with other two-factor products. The problem with that is that then you have to buy two products and license two solutions. One customer made a comment saying that it would be nice if we only had to buy one product to take care of the whole solution. In other words, they thought it would be better to just be able to buy the A10 and not buy two products to create the two-factor authentication they would have preferred. That should be something that A10 could at least offer.
We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers.
There is room for improvement in the upgrading process. Sometimes we have to contact A10 for verification of some stuff.
In my opinion, they need to improve their cloud support. There is support for cloud, but not all functions are there, such as high-availability.
There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging.
The user interface is what people complain about most of the time, particularly if they don't use it very often. Then they complain that it's a bit clunky. It works from an ADC point of view, but the interface is a bit clunky.
The solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good. It has security features like DDoS and WAF, but they are not updated automatically. If any new vulnerability comes out, you are given an option to update that vulnerability in your system and the actual firewalls. Because, for ADC, this is just an added feature, it's not the main security solution right now. It's not the only security that any company would have. There is an opportunity to modify that and make it better.
The ease of use could have been created better. Some of the UI features are very primitive. Sometimes, wrong entries will go in and stay. I gave this feedback to the team who sold it to me. Also, some things like the traffic flow management take a lot of time to learn to use. While we have mastered using the feature, it doesn't tell us where we are going wrong or if something is breaking. It will start failing if you have a containerized environment, which is why we have to start moving away from using the A10. If they could fix this, that would be good. It would be also be nice if someone could walk me through the solution’s Secure Service Mesh to optimize traffic within Kubernetes and containers, since I am not able to use A10 for rebalancing right now. While I do use the security features on the load balancing, I find them to be primitive.
It's not easy to use (mediocre at best). It's difficult for administrators to maneuver through the web user interface. It should be more intuitive through the web GUI. If you're a command line person, you can get around. However, the web UI is very difficult, and for our operational folks, they need the web UI. The solution’s security features are minimal. I'm not impressed by the DDoS solution. Traffic flow issues are very difficult, as there's no means for us to analyze the traffic coming in or out of the appliance without technical support. They need to improve in-depth diagnostics. I don't know how to do a tcpdump on the appliance. We need to do packet captures on the appliance to analyze what's going through it. Information is not as easy to attain as it is with other vendors. Better diagnostic tools would probably help.
They need to make the user interface (GUI) a bit more usable and intuitive. Some features can be a little difficult to find at times. Sometimes, the workflow in the GUI doesn't match the workflow of an actual workflow. E.g., if I want to create a load balancer application, sometimes you've got to do things a bit out of order in the GUI in order to make it work right.
* Improvement of the grid look * Intuitive UI * Syntax * Configuring