Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Array APV Series vs F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Array APV Series
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
17th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Man...
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
123
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of Array APV Series is 1.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is 15.3%, up from 15.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)15.3%
Array APV Series1.2%
Other83.5%
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

Gibert  Fidel - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Enhancing user experience through efficient application delivery control
The primary use case of Array APV Series is for load balancing of the applications and their web applications It provides a better user experience when accessing the clients' applications, making it much faster for users when they are using the applications. The most valuable feature is the…
Bonieber  Orofeo - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Chong Hua Hospital
Identifying compromised traffic and securing data has been a significant advantage
One of the most beneficial features of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is its ability to identify compromised traffic and its capabilities in authentication. Additionally, the security aspect of it provides a significant advantage as it helps us secure our data, which is a major investment and benefit for us. Before using this system, we had difficulties in storing our data and managing the traffic that comes in and out.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the application delivery control, which includes server load balancing and global server load balancing."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is the server load balancing. Something that sets this solution apart from other products is that the hardware has a much higher capacity than other vendors. That's the edge of Array Networks. Their technical support services are also very good."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is the most valuable feature."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"The most valuable features of the solution are in the area of DDoS and WAF."
"Initial setup is easy and pretty standard."
"BIG-IP can do anything. It's like a Swiss Army knife."
"It can determine if the system is going down, then route the traffic somewhere else."
"The most valuable feature is being able to manipulate the iRules, so you can send traffic to different avenues."
 

Cons

"I would like to see more granular reporting and monitoring features, and I believe our clients want to see them as well. Also, SD-WAN would be a good addition."
"Technical support should be better."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"The analytics should provide insight into latency across various traffic routes and virtual servers."
"If one virtual portion is unavailable, it can cause issues."
"Its GUI could be a bit better. Other than that, it's already pretty good. We don't use it in a high-performance environment. So, we don't really care so much about too many features."
"I wouldn't recommend the tool to small companies, considering its high price and the infrastructure needs of small businesses."
"One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side."
"Internet and cloud support could be improved."
"Certificate management needs improvement. I would like automated deployment of new certificates without manual intervention to be in the next release of this product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the price for Array APV is very competitive, and some of our clients are very satisfied when it comes to the price."
"It is a bit expensive product. Kemp Loadmaster is much cheaper than F5. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. It can be for one year or three years."
"Unless the price difference is large, this is not the primary concern for the product. The performance and product-related issues (secure for VPN, multi-function for network device, etc.) are the keys."
"Our company pays for the licensing cost on a yearly basis. Also, there are no extra costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The cost that they have with AWS are almost prohibitive. I'm being forced to use F5 WAF. I would not simply use it based on cost. I agree that they have some great features, but for me, cost is key in terms of AWS."
"Purchasing through the AWS Marketplace was very simple. The main reason that we went this way was the simplicity of buying it there. It is maintained and upgraded for us, and this makes it easy to stay current."
"The price is little bit on higher side compared to the cost of NGINX."
"Check other vendors like Cisco, Citrix or A10 Networks. There are plenty in the market with which you can achieve same thing."
"F5 pricing is too high, compared to Citrix."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business62
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise85
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Array APV Series?
The pricing is rated at eight out of ten, indicating that it could be improved as the product is expensive.
What needs improvement with Array APV Series?
The solution is usually optimized for client services, and they would benefit from it being a perpetual license, where they only need to renew the support, such as hardware replacement and technica...
What is your primary use case for Array APV Series?
The primary use case of Array APV Series is for load balancing of the applications and their web applications.
What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
The pricing of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is on the higher side compared to competitors, but it is worth it.
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
Our main use cases involve multiple applications, so we are using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) services, and we are using WAF and ASM services to secure those applications and load balance...
 

Also Known As

APV Series
F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SoftLayer, Trapp Technology, eClinicalWorks, eMeetingsOnline, YourMembership.com, Cash Depot, Needham Bank, State Bank of India, Yahoo Japan Financial Exchange, TechProcess
Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about Array APV Series vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.