No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs SecureLink comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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:
 

Categories and Ranking

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Man...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
124
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (1st)
SecureLink
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (32nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and SecureLink aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is designed for Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) and holds a mindshare of 11.4%, down 15.7% compared to last year.
SecureLink, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Infrastructure VPN, holds 0.8% mindshare, down 0.9% since last year.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)11.4%
NetScaler11.7%
HAProxy8.3%
Other68.6%
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SecureLink0.8%
OpenVPN Access Server9.1%
Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks6.4%
Other83.7%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

edshyaa - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at Stryker
Load balancing has improved traffic distribution and currently supports high availability upgrades
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) offers effective load balancing methods that help distribute traffic across our servers, whether we have two or several. This load balancing feature stands out as it is the fundamental work we do with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). While I recognize there are many features, such as iRules, which I have not explored yet, we primarily work on VIPs, pool members, and traffic distribution. The load balancing algorithms' flexibility makes them very useful for our team, enabling us to choose different servers and manage load effectively. We use various methods based on user or application requirements, making the algorithms set up by F5 in the backend quite helpful. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) positively impacts our organization primarily through its load balancing capabilities. We avoid traffic overload on individual servers by placing backend servers behind F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) VIP. This load balancing helps us manage traffic effectively. Since the configuration of the I-series, we have had smooth performance, and with the recent migration to the R-series, it is working faster than before, providing positive outcomes for our operations. Since moving to the R-series, I notice improved performance; it is user-friendly and handles traffic efficiently. The upgrading process is different as we create tenants and a main host. R-series has better CPU and memory, leading to higher throughput with minimal downtime, making it a significant improvement over the I-series.
FS
Deputy Head of IT at a legal firm with 501-1,000 employees
Efficient technical support with good synchronization features, but it needs better security
We would like to be to secure access to all of the servers for all of the internal workers and engineers. We would like to have tools that provide us with security for our servers. I would like to see an improved repository to better see the users. We have a new project that requires a lot of security we will not continue with SecureLink. The security features offered in SecureLink are not enough.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"I was able to simply and quickly set up the WAF rules and security, and also set up easily complex policies and rules which gave me some great features to redirect."
"We have been using it for such a long time, and we are quite happy with it as an organization."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is it helps our delivery team to make policies and rules for application."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is IP Intelligence."
"Initial setup was straightforward. We were up and running in three hours."
"Secure and scalable traffic management solution for applications. Good for bigger environments."
"The most valuable feature is synchronizing the limited access for partners or sub-contractors."
"Technical support is very efficient and very supportive."
 

Cons

"LTM's cloud capabilities could be improved. Cloud providers all offer load balancing, but you can't get the same level of security. F5's cloud service is still not on par with its on-prem service."
"F5 could improve the rule-setting capabilities in the GUI, and they need to simplify web management. For example, the menus in the Citrix GUI are easier to navigate, with a clean structure and layout."
"A more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users."
"Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking."
"The synchronization does works fairly well. However, if I were to make changes, I would make it easier to start the sync process."
"The room for improvement is that the product is a little costly."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"The security features offered in SecureLink are not enough."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When we purchased additional licenses for our other locations, we received a discount of between 20% and 25%."
"They are expensive."
"The tool is a bit expensive."
"If your IT budget is good, go for it."
"Though functionality is high, its cost can be considered slightly higher than its competitors​."
"The cost is high for this product, so it's not suitable for small customers, e.g. those with small environments."
"Compared to using open-source products, the prices are not cheap."
"It's not a cheap product, but there are no other replacements for what we do with it."
"We are not happy with the recent increase in the price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
Construction Company
18%
Healthcare Company
16%
Wholesaler/Distributor
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business62
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise86
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could improve file upload speeds when opening cases and attaching files; sometimes, downloading files like QKView takes time, depending on size. I expect faste...
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
My main use case for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is placing our applications on F5 and the backend servers on the pool. We also regularly renew SSL certificates before they expire, usuall...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
NISC, Sotera Wireless, InterSystems, Allscripts, Cerner, Allscripts
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, HAProxy, NetScaler and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.