In our comparison of F5 vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect is the best option with a higher overall Wheelhouse Score. Wheelhouse Score uses a combination of feature and pricing comparison data, average user ratings, and editorial reviews to score software vendors on a scale of 1-10.
* Vendor does not share prices.
* Vendor does not share prices.
If you require detailed application security and want to configure your WAF to combat OWASP top 10 threats, F5 ASM (or WAF) is an excellent choice. While there are other vendors in the market offering similar capabilities, F5 ASM stands out in terms of configurability and addressing specific security requirements.
The strength of F5 Application Security Firewall is impressive. With a single click and a license, you can enable WAF on the F5 Load Balancer. F5 offers a unified appliance that combines load balancing and WAF functionalities. This means that while load balancing your application, you don't need to route user requests to separate products. F5 inspects user requests for security purposes during the load balancing process. The configuration options for application security are comprehensive, and the WAF learns the application to effectively block unwanted traffic.
Configuring F5 WAF requires deep knowledge and expertise. The configuration GUI can be complex, leading to potential confusion during the setup process. Additionally, the price of the solution is quite high.
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
F5 BIG-IP Advanced Web Application Firewall addresses our organization's need for protecting and load balancing all external applications. By leveraging the WAF functionality, we can secure every application that is exposed to the outside. The combination of WAF and load balancing features provides significant benefits in terms of security and performance."
One of the standout features is the automatic updating of signatures, relieving the concern of manual updates. The bot defense capability is highly valuable, and the ability to easily identify blocked URLs from the logs is a great advantage.
The user interface could be improved to enhance user-friendliness. F5 should invest in refining the interface for a more intuitive and user-friendly experience.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
If you require detailed application security and want to configure your WAF to combat OWASP top 10 threats, F5 ASM (or WAF) is an excellent choice. While there are other vendors in the market offering similar capabilities, F5 ASM stands out in terms of configurability and addressing specific security requirements.
The strength of F5 Application Security Firewall is impressive. With a single click and a license, you can enable WAF on the F5 Load Balancer. F5 offers a unified appliance that combines load balancing and WAF functionalities. This means that while load balancing your application, you don't need to route user requests to separate products. F5 inspects user requests for security purposes during the load balancing process. The configuration options for application security are comprehensive, and the WAF learns the application to effectively block unwanted traffic.
Configuring F5 WAF requires deep knowledge and expertise. The configuration GUI can be complex, leading to potential confusion during the setup process. Additionally, the price of the solution is quite high.
F5 BIG-IP Advanced Web Application Firewall addresses our organization's need for protecting and load balancing all external applications. By leveraging the WAF functionality, we can secure every application that is exposed to the outside. The combination of WAF and load balancing features provides significant benefits in terms of security and performance."
One of the standout features is the automatic updating of signatures, relieving the concern of manual updates. The bot defense capability is highly valuable, and the ability to easily identify blocked URLs from the logs is a great advantage.
The user interface could be improved to enhance user-friendliness. F5 should invest in refining the interface for a more intuitive and user-friendly experience.
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Add suggested to comparison
In our rating and review comparison of F5 vs. ThreatConnect, F5 has 6 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for F5 is 4.83 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. F5 has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing F5 vs. ThreatConnect reviews, F5 has stronger overall reviews.
F5 vs. ThreatConnect both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Workflow Automation, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Reminders/Alerts, Report Management, Systems/Administrative, Customizable Items, Integration Options, Compliance Accreditations, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of F5 vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than F5.
In our pricing comparison of F5 vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect's pricing starts at 0/month and is more affordable compared to ThreatConnect's starting cost of 0/month.
Our comparison of F5 vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for meets requirements, learning curve, ease of admin. F5 scores higher in ease of use, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
