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

Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect) vs F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Secure Client enhances remote work with secure, user-friendly connectivity, offering indirect ROI through service sales and efficiency.
Sentiment score
7.4
Organizations saw mixed financial results with F5 BIG-IP LTM, noting benefits in performance and security but varied financial returns.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.6
Cisco Secure Client support is accessible and helpful, though not often needed due to strong internal expertise.
Sentiment score
6.8
F5 BIG-IP LTM support is praised for responsiveness, but users report delays with complex issues and inconsistency in non-premium support.
Cisco offers very high-quality customer service.
Cisco technical support is difficult, and it requires lots of contracts.
Cisco Technical Support is very good, very friendly, and helpful.
I would rate the technical support of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) nine out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Cisco Secure Client is highly scalable, integrating well with systems for effective remote work and easy expansion for all sizes.
Sentiment score
7.5
F5 BIG-IP LTM efficiently scales for most users, though some face hardware and licensing challenges necessitating careful planning.
A smaller firewall can handle fewer sessions, while a larger one can handle tens of thousands of sessions.
The scalability of Cisco Secure Client depends on the hardware I choose.
The solution is scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Cisco Secure Client is reliable and stable, receiving high ratings despite occasional network-related connectivity issues.
Sentiment score
8.0
F5 BIG-IP LTM is highly reliable with minimal downtime, swiftly resolved issues, and commendable performance in demanding environments.
The stability is really good, and I would rate it up to nine.
I would rate the stability ten out of ten.
I do not encounter many issues with stability, but sometimes the hardware's capacity can be a limiting factor.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Secure Client faces usability and integration challenges, lacks Linux support, and is hampered by high resource usage and cost.
F5 BIG-IP LTM is expensive, complex, lacks pay-as-you-grow, with room for improving support, integrations, and user-friendliness.
There is room for improvement in terms of endpoint security and cloud integration, which were lacking long ago.
The various licensing options make it challenging to manage, and the cost is a significant issue for customers.
Cisco's security portfolio, including Secure Client and the firewalls, is falling behind.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco Secure Client pricing is deemed reasonable but varies by user count and term, with costs per user.
F5 BIG-IP LTM is expensive but valued for robust security, performance, with potential savings through strategic bundling and negotiation.
I perceive the pricing to be a seven, however, I have perpetual licenses.
The pricing seems to align equally with other competitors like Palo Alto during a competitive situation.
The product is costly.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Secure Client provides seamless VPN connectivity, strong security, and user-friendly remote access, ideal for scalable remote work solutions.
F5 BIG-IP LTM enhances application performance with load balancing, iRules, SSL offloading, and customizable, intuitive interface for complex environments.
Beneficial for businesses needing secure access outside the office.
It supports secure remote work and facilitates seamless VPN access.
Cisco Secure Client's AnyConnect VPN's reliability has been absolutely wonderful, as well as the ability to connect from any network, regardless of location.
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.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Client (includ...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
SSL VPN (3rd), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (4th), ZTNA as a Service (8th), Cisco Security Portfolio (3rd)
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Man...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
121
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect) and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect) is designed for SSL VPN and holds a mindshare of 14.9%, up 13.3% compared to last year.
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), on the other hand, focuses on Application Delivery Controllers (ADC), holds 15.6% mindshare, down 15.9% since last year.
SSL VPN
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

Wouter Beer - PeerSpot reviewer
Generates revenue through service offering while needing additional safety features
The primary use case for Cisco Secure Client, including AnyConnect, is as a VPN for remote access I use AnyConnect because I have Cisco infrastructure. It utilizes certificates, which allows for automatic setup. The security features are beneficial, and the whole idea of the app is that it should…
Bonieber  Orofeo - PeerSpot reviewer
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) ( /products/f5-big-ip-local-traffic-manager-ltm-reviews ) 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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which SSL VPN solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
48%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
5%
Government
4%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client?
The tool is user-friendly, robust and easy to use in any environment.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client?
I am not sure about the actual pricing as I work on the technical side. However, customers often complain about the price being high.
What needs improvement with Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client?
Cisco Secure Client is quite solid, but the license terms are complex and could be improved. The various licensing options make it challenging to manage, and the cost is a significant issue for cus...
What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
The price needs improvement as it is quite costly.
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
We're using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) ( /products/f5-big-ip-local-traffic-manager-ltm-reviews ) for our applications and for managing our incoming and outgoing traffic.
 

Also Known As

Cisco AnyConnect Secure Mobility Client
F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MST, Molina Healthcare, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers, Arup, New South Wales Rural FireService
Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about Ivanti, Citrix, Cisco and others in SSL VPN. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.