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

F5 BIG-IQ vs Temporal 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

F5 BIG-IQ
Ranking in Process Automation
27th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Temporal
Ranking in Process Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of F5 BIG-IQ is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Temporal is 3.7%, down from 7.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Temporal3.7%
F5 BIG-IQ0.9%
Other95.4%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Bikale Kassu - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager for Implementation and Administration at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Has faced challenges with visibility and technical support but allows centralized management of multiple sites
The configuration part is complex for F5 BIG-IQ. The simplicity and visibility part needs improvement. The dashboard, especially the analytics part, needs to be more simple and presentable. For the security part, it is difficult to present to our management, so we have to capture it and prepare manual reporting options rather than getting them directly from the system. The automation part in F5 BIG-IQ is limited; we are still using it only for load balancing for some services. We haven't integrated it with our Accesso or implemented any automation options. The setup process for F5 BIG-IQ would rate a five out of ten.
MP
Founder & CEO at Lanzar
Automation streamlines operations and improves time and cost efficiency
My overall experience with Temporal is rated between 8 to 9, mainly due to a learning curve that only senior developers can navigate effectively, which makes it a bit challenging for junior developers. We don't have any instances of on-premise, so I cannot comment on that because we are a first company, with all services deployed on cloud infrastructure. Most of the integration is through RPC or APIs, ensuring all our systems are in cohesion. We do state persistence to a Postgres instance, and we have modified it to our use case with better indexing. And for fault tolerance, we built a queue and an alerting mechanism that notifies us if any workflows fail after specific failure points so we can act upon it. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Temporal an 8.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"F5 is a leader in this space and this is a solution that I recommend."
"The reporting feature is quite good."
"Scalability: To move from larger boxes to smaller boxes, along with virtualization. So, we are not locked into a particular size."
"We use this solution on a daily basis, and it is very stable."
"We mainly use F5 BIG-IQ to protect our web-based applications, such as our email and website, so we use it as a web-based application firewall for those services."
"Features like AFM, the gateway, and Global DNS are the coolest features that save work for us."
"The most valuable features are load balancing and WAF."
"Their technical support is perfect, they were so supportive, the guys are great and they would do anything for you."
"What I like best about Temporal is its durable execution, which means you don't need to write many boilerplate code for critical pieces, especially for retries. It also has great observability and a nice dashboard to see issues without digging into logs. The interface for viewing activities is excellent, with good tracing that shows how long activities took and what ran, making it almost perfect for debugging."
"The ROI is apparent in terms of business case automation; previously, a bunch of people filled in data in NetSuite or managed stocks between warehouses and Amazon, but now everything is automated, saving time."
"Temporal focus on developers rather than business users."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to retry from an interrupted state."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to fix things quickly."
"We like the fact that the whole process is durable, which is very useful to us."
"The solution's most valuable features include its ability to simplify the management of complex workflows, improve system resilience and fault tolerance, and reduce the need for extensive boilerplate code."
"Temporal provides visibility into workflow progress and analytics and supports scheduled tasks with customizable settings, making it very convenient."
 

Cons

"If they had a GUI interface for creating security rules then it would make it easier."
"From a hands-on experience perspective, more resources should be available on the Internet, like labs and lab preparations."
"The solution's rSeries has been made free, and iSeries should be made free as well."
"There are a lot of scripts available on the internet for people who know how to use them, but with a graphical interface, it would be easier for new users."
"For us, right now, F5 is too expensive."
"The shell, kernel, or Linux has something like a delay, especially with the Virtual Edition, when you are trying to implement it in the cloud and you want to access it remotely with web management. It would be great if they could improve their kernel. It was difficult for me, especially when I got started with BIG-IP. I was struggling to find which commands work with it. If you want to work with it, you have to be a Linux guy."
"You do need to have a good and solid background or foundation for networking and you need to understand how to configure F5 appliances in order to properly use it."
"I had trouble with high availability deployment in my environment."
"We previously faced issues with the solution's patch system."
"I don't like the limitations on data flow, particularly the difficulty of passing large amounts of data between different activities."
"One area for the product improvement is the learning curve."
"Not all necessary information is available online, and community support is limited."
"Temporal's debugging is a bit complex."
"Sometimes it scales kind of badly, but it depends on the process of our products."
"There are areas where Temporal could improve. For instance, calling multiple microservices with Temporal introduces latency due to workflow registration and analytics overhead."
"While the tool can be a bit daunting initially, especially if you're not used to async programming models, it's generally a pleasure. There's always room for improvement, though. I've noticed some limitations with the .NET SDK regarding dynamic workflows, but this might have been improved in recent versions. Overall, I think Temporal could be more open about implementing features in a more—.NET-friendly way, especially in how you add workers and clients."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Users have to pay an annual subscription fee for the solution's iSeries."
"There is only one licensing fee for F5 BIG-IQ and everything is included in the price."
"I would like the product to be cheaper."
"F5 BIG-IQ is a cheap solution."
"The savings weren't as big as we initially expected, but they were pretty great from a developer's perspective."
"The tool is open source under the MIT license, so there are no hidden fees. You can freely use everything on their GitHub and Docker images."
"It is worth the price."
"Temporal is open-source and free to use, which is great. We didn't have to pay for any premium features."
"Temporal is a free, open-source tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Construction Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 BIG-IQ?
From the pricing perspective, F5 BIG-IQ rates an eight out of ten as it's reasonably priced.
What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IQ?
The configuration part is complex for F5 BIG-IQ. The simplicity and visibility part needs improvement. The dashboard, especially the analytics part, needs to be more simple and presentable. For the...
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IQ?
Currently for WAF, we are moving to another device, F5. We are not using Imperva. F5 BIG-IQ is the Web Application Firewall we're currently using, but regarding the Imperva products, now we are flo...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Temporal?
In terms of pricing, Camunda is indeed costlier than Temporal. The cloud deployment costs differ, and while Camunda 7 can be cheaper due to its integrated setup, comparing latest versions between T...
What needs improvement with Temporal?
The only area for improvement in Temporal is the UI. I know it is a non-UI first product, but comparing Camunda versus Temporal UI, there is a difference. Moreover, n8n, being a no-code platform, i...
What is your primary use case for Temporal?
The main purposes for using Temporal are automation flows, especially financial automations and supply chain automations. Our company name is SR, we are a digital-first CPG brand making company, ma...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about F5 BIG-IQ vs. Temporal and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.