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

FortiCache [EOL] vs Steelhead 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

FortiCache [EOL]
Average Rating
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Steelhead
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
WAN Optimization (1st), WAN Edge (13th)
 

Featured Reviews

AA
Information System Engineer at Radial Circle
Offers good traffic monitoring but they should offer better subscription policies
Technical support is very good, I've had an issue where I've had to raise a ticket. We got the device swapped and got another device that was the same model. It didn't take much time at all. The only issue I had with that when my device went back for the swap, my license was not paused. When my device came back I had like just a few more months left for my license. I was hoping for the license to be paused where there is no premium and then it could get reactivated when I got it back. That was the only issue I've had with support.
Chaudhary Muhammad Moez Manzar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior manager at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Reduces operational costs through bandwidth optimization but struggles with high traffic licensing and complex deployments
The logs in Steelhead are fantastic. There is a deep level of logs such as top 10 docker and top 50 docker. I can check from the top 50 docker which type of application is optimizing well and which type of traffic is not optimized. Steelhead provides logs and percentage levels, which is good. I can see any type of log report, report security, different types of report availability, but it is not customizable. Overall, this is a good feature. Steelhead provides real-time optimization with graphs and tables on real-time optimization, informing us packet by packet including port, source IP, destination IP, and destination port number. This reporting and real-time monitoring is fantastic, although I faced a problem in Oracle. Steelhead mainly saves the money that needs to be paid to ISPs. My actual traffic is around 2 GB, but I purchased a link from the ISP for only around 700 to 800 MB. All the prices that need to be paid monthly to the ISP are saved, which is a significant saving for my company after using Riverbed.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"After some configuration issues were corrected, it has been stable."
"I like the traffic monitoring because it meets the firewall protocols."
"Technical support is very good, I've had an issue where I've had to raise a ticket."
"We think it's a good solution for cloud security, where one has hybrid cloud."
"It has a nice graphic interface and it is easy to find information about effectively using the product because of the large user-base."
"We think it's a good solution for cloud security, where one has hybrid cloud. They have different cloud solutions like a Office 365 or Azure or Amazon. This is a good solution to control all the different cloud solutions you have in your family of hybrid clouds, from one panel. This is what the main feature we look for."
"The compression features are valuable, as at most sites it doubled our effective MPLS bandwidth capabilities for transfers."
"Riverbed has excellent technical support."
"Without Riverbed WAN Optimization, it took one hour to send one gig of traffic, but with Riverbed, one gig of traffic was sent in five minutes."
"Steelhead has drastically improved user experience."
"The connectivity to speed is the valuable feature."
"It is very easy to install the solution."
"Through this product, we can easily find the bottlenecks and where the traffic occurs or is generated in the network."
"The data compression through the WAN is like being on a LAN and is even more effective when the technology uses an adaptive transfer scheme known as warm transfer."
 

Cons

"It should be set up more specifically so that I only pay for what I want."
"However, we would like them to add more integrations. We would appreciate a more open solution. They're quite good when you have the entire Fortinet ecosystem, but otherwise it's not as good of a solution."
"There is always room for improvement so maybe I would say the subscriptions need improvement."
"Sometimes when we are using FortiCache with high availability, some problems occur. If the first firewall goes down, sometimes the second firewall does not come up immediately."
"If we lose the primary Steelhead that handles the optimization, the secondary Steelhead cannot handle the same High Availability."
"Setting up QoS marking is not all that intuitive."
"The advertised “fail open” feature doesn’t work as expected."
"Not all devices are available for creating the topology as per the need on your network, such as the three switch router or firewall in this product."
"I would like to see improvement in the solution’s configuration and protocol aspects. We have got some configurations that are not set. I would also like to simplify the call detection of some protocols."
"Steelhead is considered an expensive solution in our country. On a scale of one to ten for expense, it would be rated an eight."
"Steelhead's handling of encrypted traffic could be improved because it requires some complex configuration to optimize encrypted traffic, especially when working with Microsoft protocols for mail servers and VPN services"
"The product needs improvement in its integration with SDN."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is based on a yearly contract."
"The solution is expensive and the service contacts are costly too. The cost of the device makes the value proposition borderline acceptable for us. The service contract fees we pay is approximately $30,000 annually."
"Across our 12 data centers, we spend around $150k annually."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which WAN Optimization solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Outsourcing Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise14
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
We just did an assessment for our 47 datacenters around North America. The top two enterprise-level network monitoring solutions were ExtraHop first, Riverbed SteelCenter second. Their negotiated c...
What is your primary use case for Riverbed Steelhead?
I am currently working with Riverbed for replication between PR to DR for synchronization purposes, and for WAN optimization between replication from one data center to another data center. The mai...
What advice do you have for others considering Riverbed Steelhead?
Application performance may improve with Steelhead, but it varies application to application. Some applications, such as Oracle traffic, are not working well, but other traffic performs fine. The t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
RIverbed Steelhead
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Black Gold Regional Schools, Amadeus Hospitality, Jefferson County, Chunghwa Telecom, City of Boroondara, Dimension Data
ElAraby, SFK Leblanc, Bobst Group, Northwest Pipe Company, Halkbank, Tradebridge, EFG Hermes
Find out what your peers are saying about Riverbed, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Cato Networks and others in WAN Optimization. Updated: August 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.