Centralized policies have strengthened application security and streamline load balancing
What is our primary use case?
My main use case for F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is application delivery and security, primarily for load balancing and Layer 7 (application-layer) protection of web applications.
We use it to distribute traffic across multiple backend servers to ensure high availability, performance optimization, and zero single point of failure. On the security side, we use it to protect applications from common web threats such as SQL Injection, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), CSRF, brute-force and credential-stuffing attacks, bot traffic, malicious scanners, and Layer 7 DDoS floods.
Additionally, we leverage BIG-IP VE for:
-
SSL/TLS offloading and inspection to reduce server load
-
Persistence/session management (cookie / source IP) for stable user sessions
-
Health monitoring to automatically detect failures and route traffic to healthy nodes
-
Traffic visibility and logging for troubleshooting, compliance, and faster incident response
Overall, it has been a reliable solution for improving application uptime, security posture, and user experience in production environments.
How has it helped my organization?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition has had a very positive impact on our organization by improving application delivery, availability, and overall service stability. It has helped us ensure high uptime by distributing traffic across multiple servers and automatically routing users to healthy backend resources through effective health monitoring.
It also enhanced application performance through optimized load balancing and SSL offloading, which reduced server load and improved response times for end users. From an operational perspective, it has saved significant time for our team by providing better traffic visibility, faster troubleshooting, and centralized control, which reduced downtime and improved incident response.
Overall, BIG-IP VE has strengthened our application environment by delivering reliable performance, better availability, and faster service delivery with improved efficiency.
What is most valuable?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition’s best features are load balancing, high availability, and Layer 7 security. It keeps applications running smoothly by distributing traffic, provides failover to avoid downtime, and protects web apps from attacks like SQL injection, XSS, bots, and brute-force attempts. On top of that, the monitoring and visibility are very helpful. It makes troubleshooting faster and saves a lot of time for the operations team. Overall, it’s a reliable solution that improves performance, security, and availability at the same time.
What needs improvement?
I believe F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition could be improved in terms of pricing and licensing transparency.
However, customers who purchase through authorized partners may receive better pricing and licensing options, as it largely depends on the partner’s capability and commercial offering.
From a pricing perspective, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is somewhat high compared to others, and the licensing is provided as annual-based licenses rather than perpetual licenses.
There are some issue we are faced we are getting clear kb article
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working in my current field for the last 3.5 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Yes, it is very stable solution you can as so far on your own requirement
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is highly scalable. You can scale it by increasing CPU/RAM resources, adding more backend pool members, and deploying additional VE instances in HA or clustered designs. It works well for growing traffic demands as long as proper sizing and licensing are planned.
How are customer service and support?
yes we are supporting customer in deployment and providing technical services to all our customers
How would you rate customer service and support?
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition, we were using Citrix NetScaler.
How was the initial setup?
it's less complex from others
What about the implementation team?
Yes, we used a local reseller and system integrator for the deployment, and the overall experience was very good. They supported us with licensing, sizing recommendations, and end-to-end implementation, and ensured a smooth rollout with proper configuration and post-deployment support.
What was our ROI?
Yes, we have seen a positive ROI with F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. It improved application uptime and availability through load balancing and health monitoring, which reduced service outages. It also saved operational time by enabling faster troubleshooting and centralized traffic control, and reduced backend server load through SSL offloading, resulting in better performance with fewer escalations and less downtime.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Pricing and licensing for F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition are generally on the higher side compared to other ADC solutions. Setup cost mainly depends on the required modules and sizing. Licensing is mostly subscription-based (annual/term), and if the evaluation license expires, some LTM features can be disabled, so license monitoring is important.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We evaluated Citrix ADC (NetScaler) before choosing F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. Both are strong ADC solutions for load balancing and application delivery, but we found some key differences.
F5 BIG-IP VE vs Citrix ADC (NetScaler) – Pros & Cons
-
Very strong LTM load balancing and traffic management
-
Mature Layer 7 security and policy control (especially with iRules and security profiles)
-
Excellent stability and performance in enterprise environments
-
Strong monitoring, logging, and troubleshooting visibility
-
Better flexibility for advanced customization and complex use cases
❌ F5 BIG-IP VE – Cons
-
Licensing and pricing can be higher compared to alternatives
-
Requires skilled resources for advanced configurations (iRules, policies, security tuning)
✅ Citrix ADC – Pros
-
Good load balancing and application optimization
-
Often seen as cost-effective depending on licensing and bundles
-
Works well in environments heavily based on Citrix virtualization / VDI
-
Strong GUI-based configuration for standard use cases
❌ Citrix ADC – Cons
-
Advanced customization and troubleshooting can be less flexible compared to F5
-
Some enterprises find F5 more stable for high-complexity deployments
-
Security/policy tuning may require more effort depending on the environment
Summary
Overall, we selected F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition because it provided better application availability, stronger traffic control, and more reliable performance for our production requirements.
What other advice do I have?
I would rate F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition 9/10 overall.
Advice: Plan the sizing and licensing properly, deploy it in HA (Active/Standby) for high availability, and monitor license validity (especially EV licenses) to avoid any service impact. If configured correctly, it delivers excellent load balancing, application availability, and Layer 7 security.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Private Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Focuses on securing application access with dependable integration
What is our primary use case?
My main use cases for using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition are mainly WAF. That's the main purpose.
We use F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition mostly for the login functionality with our Salesforce and for security login purposes.
What is most valuable?
The features I appreciate the most about F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition are the WAF capabilities.
The advanced web application firewall protection and SSL offloading capabilities of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition have been utilized in my organization. These features are contributing to our application security and compliance posture.
What needs improvement?
I find it too complex to assess the impact of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's automated deployment and integration with container orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and OpenShift, on my applications delivery speed and reliability.
I don't use F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's automated deployment and integration with container orchestration platforms such as Kubernetes and OpenShift.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition for about five to six years, possibly longer.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is stable and reliable. I have not experienced any stability or reliability issues with the solution.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition scales with us as we are continuously expanding the deals of the product.
The solution is performing well and keeping up with our needs as we continue to increase our usage.
How are customer service and support?
I do not use customer service and technical support directly with F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. We have an integrator called Spider. They are satisfactory and whenever they encounter issues, they open a case with F5 and assist us.
I would rate the customer success and technical support for F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition an eight out of ten.
What was our ROI?
I have no idea about the ROI from using F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition. We use the technology on the technical side, not on the financial aspects.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I don't have information about the pricing, setup costs, or licensing for F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
What other advice do I have?
I do not use the load balancing and traffic management features of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
I use other container orchestration platforms, but they are not relevant to F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
I have utilized F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition's ability to integrate with cloud platforms including AWS, Azure, GCP, and Salesforce.
I have no idea how this integration has helped my organization manage hybrid or multi-cloud environments.
The seamless integration of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition with existing F5 technologies is not important to me as I do not use other technologies from F5.
Financially, we require F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition because we need the product. We don't have anything else that performs the same functions, so we use it without trying alternatives.
I just use and manage F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition, though I didn't handle its deployment.
I would recommend F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition as a solution to others.
I would rate F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition an eight out of ten overall.
Used for for web application firewalls and it has DoS layer 7 protection
What is our primary use case?
We use the solution for web application firewalls and VPNs. It could be your VPN concentrator, intelligent DNS, and load balancing.
What is most valuable?
For public clouds like AWS in Azure, the solution can use AutoDiscovery to discover the members of the virtual machines in AWS and Azure based on their tagging mechanism. This way, when you add a new virtual machine, it will automatically be added to the Virtual Edition's post.
It has a web application firewall (WAF) module. It has to get web application security. It has DoS layer 7 protection, which not many vendors have. The solution also automatically builds the thresholds for DoS attacks so that you don't have to configure the DoS manually. You enable it with basic settings, and it's using machine learning to learn the baseline and detect DoS attacks.
What needs improvement?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is a heavy system that needs a lot of CPU, memory, and hard disk. Also, the solution's center management is not very well managed.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using the solution for seven to eight years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The solution has been much more stable over the last few years because it's an old product, and its bugs were fixed.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support is good for a complex product like F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition.
How was the initial setup?
The solution's initial setup is easy because most bugs are fixed.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is an expensive solution, but it's worth the price.
What other advice do I have?
We have deployed the solution on VMware, private cloud, and public cloud. F5 is going to release a new product, BIG-IP Next, which will be a new implementation of BIG-IP with many more features. BIG-IP Next is going to be more cloud-friendly because it's going to be based on containers.
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition has a scripting module. If something is not in the default functionality, you could always make a script that will solve your issue. Even if it's something that would take a week, you'll still be able to write a script to solve your custom use case. Most vendors don't have such scripting functionality.
F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is worth it, but it's a complex solution that has many functions. Users may have to do some learning instead of using it straight away. The learning material is publicly available to learn, but it will take time.
The solution's integration is straightforward because it integrates well with others like Splunk. The solution's security functionality is one of the best for the on-premises device. Nowadays, the solution has integration with shared security.
Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule
We are using it primarily for load balancing. We also make great use of SSL interception (offloading and onloading), packet inspection, rewriting, and DNS wide IP.
How has it helped my organization?
It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature.
What is most valuable?
Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule.
What needs improvement?
I would recommend that the cost be lowered.
User tracking: Needs to provide a visual interface to follow a customer's activity (from client to BIG-IP to SNAT IP to the chosen server, then back). Today, we are still performing packet captures.
For how long have I used the solution?
Three to five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Not so far.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Not so far.
How is customer service and technical support?
So far, we have not had to contact them.
Which solutions did we use previously?
We previously used Cisco ACE, which has very limited features.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup is straightforward. The GUI interface is user-friendly.
Software upgrades have been performed by F5 teams.
What about the implementation team?
The initial migration was done by our technical team.
The last implementation was done by the F5 team. I would rate them as a nine out of 10. I am not giving a 10 because we encountered some difficulties with the software upgrade from version 11 to version 12.
What was our ROI?
ROI is four years.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
If you are planning to use security features, better to go for strong hardware and the best bundle license, which is great for web security.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Improves our program performance and security
We use it for local traffic management and for the application firewall. We are trying to deploy virtual appliances in AWS.
How has it helped my organization?
It has improved our program performance and security.
What is most valuable?
* The web application firewall.
* The configuration and integration into the AWS environment was pretty easy.
What needs improvement?
We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability is almost there. Sometimes it hangs or there are unpredictable performance issues.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It's easier to scale.
How is customer service and technical support?
Technical support could be better.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The price is high.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We looked at A10. When deciding whether to go with F5 or A10 it depends on the business requirements. Sometimes I propose one and sometimes I propose the other. It depends on the customer's requirements and budget. For our internal use we went with F5 because it's the best tool.
What other advice do I have?
The on-prem version and the AWS versions are almost the same.
In terms of the experience purchasing through AWS marketplace, because we are a partner, the way we purchase it from AWS is different. We don't buy directly from the market.
It is a central point of entry for our user base providing user authentication
We use it for brokering services.
How has it helped my organization?
It has made it a single entry point for all users, verging across all the VPCs. It is more of an SSO solution versus multitier user loggin.
What is most valuable?
* Central point of entry for our user base.
* User authentication
* PPI
* Integration with our website.
What needs improvement?
We would like to have integration into encryption and PKI integration with SafeNet. That is probably the key component in using External PKIs, letting people bring their PKIs with them. On the back-end, we have a SafeNet component. They are going to bring additional features in, so allowing integration with encryption and PKI, and tying it back into Microsoft AD in the back with an LDAP lookup for users.
For how long have I used the solution?
One to three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability seems fine. We provide fault tolerance with HA, so we have two of them up and running. We have built in integration. Therefore, we do not worry about workload issues
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It seems very scalable now. We have 200 users, going to about 10,000 within the next year. There are multiple VPCs and multiple AWS accounts.
How was the initial setup?
The integration and configuration of the product in our AWS environment seems to be pretty straightforward. There doesn't seem to be anything complex. We haven't needed anything additional, like Professional Services.
What about the implementation team?
We did use technical support on the original engineering.
What was our ROI?
We have seen ROI because we are not hosting it. We moved this to the cloud for our ingest, so our workload is moving to the cloud and Amazon.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Purchasing through the AWS Marketplace was good. We chose to go through the AWS Marketplace because everything that we needed was a soft appliance. We needed something to work in Amazon, and this product was available there.
We have found the pricing and licensing on AWS to be competitive.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We looked at F5, Citrix, and VMware. We chose F5 because it has a better market name, seemed to be vendor-agnostic for providing capabilities that others didn't, and its reputation.
What other advice do I have?
Use F5. It has a good reputation. We experienced easy implementation and had an overall good experience.
It can determine if the system is going down, then route the traffic somewhere else
We are using it for load balancing and security.
When someone requests data through the load balancer, we pull the certificate name out to identify who that person is. This is one of the things that F5 does. We haven't able to replicate this so far with the Amazon products. That is why we are going to F5.
How has it helped my organization?
It has the ability to do the security work that we need along with the current thing which is supporting the load balancer. Therefore, it can determine if the system is going down, then route the traffic somewhere else.
It does what we need.
What is most valuable?
We had a problem where customers were doing transactions in our system, pulling health records, and the system had to be shut down for maintenance. Unfortunately, we wouldn't know that the system was being shut down, and we would lose that information. Then, the customer would get upset.
Using the F5, we were able to build rules to detect that the shutdown was occurring, then begin to route people elsewhere, so we didn't have any outages or downtime. This made customers a lot happier, and it made us a lot happier.
What needs improvement?
They could improve the product's ease of use. There has been a bit of complication on some things from the admin side. There is some confusion how to operate it.
For how long have I used the solution?
One to three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I don't think too much stress placed on it. In F5 Studio, the stability been very good.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
We run 14 servers. We get up to about half a million transactions an hour, and the scalability has been good. It has not been a problem.
How is customer service and technical support?
I would rate the technical support as a five out of ten. Our admin had to learn everything and do it himself. He seems to have had difficultly at times with the tech support. However, this may be a manifestation of the fact the government bought it, but didn't buy the support.
How was the initial setup?
The integration and configuration of this product were pretty good. Once you get going, it gets easier to use.
It works with Red Hat JBoss application server, and it integrates reasonably well.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
It is sort of a commodity product. A load balancer is a load balancer. What will be, at the end of the day, the cheapest option or have the best performance, that is what it will come down to. Can it do the necessary performance that we need, and if so, is there a cheaper alternative? If not, then we'll stick with what we have.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We also evaluated some free stuff on the AWS Marketplace, or some cheaper stuff. We also looked at the Amazon offerings, like the Elastic Load Balancing.
The customer wanted to take what they had on-premise and put it in Amazon: full stop. Because we could obtain the certifications for security and the existing Amazon products didn't do 100 percent of what F5 did, they didn't want us to change any code. They just wanted us to keep going the way we were. This is the reason why we pulled F5 over.
What other advice do I have?
Try doing a proof of concept or a prototype, before you go full in on a load balancer, to make sure it does everything you need.
It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware
We use it for load balancing and routing.
How has it helped my organization?
It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware.
It integrates with various firewall and networking devices along with application services, and it works fine.
What is most valuable?
* Routing
* Load balancing
What needs improvement?
* Cloud native integration should be provided.
* Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability is great. We put our production load on it, which is very stressful.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability has been great. We have thousands of severs. F5 has scaled very well.
How is customer service and technical support?
They provide average enterprise technical support.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I also evaluated Cisco, but chose F5 because it had better features in terms of load balancing. I liked the various features in F5, including input/output routing, load balancing, and global load balancing.
What other advice do I have?
Explore the API support and integration with the open source products. Those are the key thing to analyze. F5 are the experts in their area.
It is the centerpiece of a lot of the solutions that we build
We use it for a number of solutions that we build, mostly for identity and access management control.
How has it helped my organization?
It is the centerpiece of a lot of the solutions that we build, and it has integrated with everything that we have needed it to.
It is the best value for our engineers and architects who know how to use it. It meets the government's requirements every time that we've used it. It is easy for us to keep integrating with our solutions.
What is most valuable?
We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
We put a lot of stress on the application. It is very stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability is awesome. Our environment is thousands upon thousands of instances in AWS.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
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.
Load balancing brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out
When we migrate workloads into the cloud, we need the same functionality in the cloud, and low balancing is part of that. Being able to manage the platform on cloud, the same as on-premise, is the use case.
How has it helped my organization?
Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured.
What is most valuable?
* Flexibility
* Capacity
* Reputation in the market.
What needs improvement?
I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is very stable. It's a pretty solid product.
Our clients use it pretty heavily. Most all of them are production workloads and some of them are external facing workloads, so you can see seasonal peaks.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It's very scalable. Probably the largest implementation I did was with hundreds of servers behind it.
How is customer service and technical support?
The technical support is very good.
What about the implementation team?
We haven't had any issues with the integration and configuration of AWS. It works just like it would on-premise. I have some questions around its scale in the cloud. We haven't done as much work in the cloud as we've done with on-premise. However, so far we haven't had any problems with it either.
What was our ROI?
My clients have seen ROI.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
It could be priced a little less, especially on the virtual side. It gets a bit expensive, but you get what you pay.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
There is always the Cisco on-premise solution in play. There are also the AWS native functionalities.
The ease of management is the tie-breaker for F5, being able to manage the on-premise and cloud with the same tools.
It's fairly easy to integrate. If you compare it to Cisco products, Cisco is very regimented and works best with themselves. F5 has been forced to play nice with others, which is a bonus.
What other advice do I have?
The three key things to look at closely:
* Look at the flexibility of the products.
* The ability to work with it on-premise and in the cloud is a huge advantage.
* The ability to integrate it with other non-F5 products.
We use both the AWS and on-premise versions. They work about the same, which is what I like about the product: same management plane and configuration.
