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

F5 Advanced WAF vs SiteLock comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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 Advanced WAF
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SiteLock
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
37th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (47th), CDN (16th), Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Web Application Firewall (WAF) category, the mindshare of F5 Advanced WAF is 3.4%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SiteLock is 1.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 Advanced WAF3.4%
SiteLock1.8%
Other94.8%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2797602 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Granular security policies have protected critical applications and ensure safe user and admin access
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify which source generated these requests, including the source and port information for initiation. These data are missing from F5 Advanced WAF. Besides that, another improvement could be refining the bot detection to minimize false positives; it should be able to verify more granularly between legitimate and non-legitimate clients. Overall, I find everything else good. A wish list feature I have is for the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) to respond more promptly. Their response time needs improvement; while they do not take excessive time, it can be enhanced, especially given it is a security product.
it_user723534 - PeerSpot reviewer
Guitarist at a media company with self employed
It's not easy to get out once you're in
Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information. When you sign on for the paid service, Sitelock: * Hides (makes it difficult to find) that they default the auto-renew (you can't sign up without agreeing to have them automatically bill your credit card every year). * Hides (makes it difficult to find) how to stop auto-renew: * You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses. * You have to hunt their website for a link (in extremely small font) to the page which contains instructions for cancelling. * When you get to that page, turns out it's the 5000+ word "Terms of Service" document, which you have to scour to find a phone number. Then, you have to call and get put on hold (or if you like, they will call you back three days later). Once you finally get through, you have to jump through a lot of security hoops. All of the above, just to cancel the service. Their product may or may not be OK, but be forewarned that with Sitelock, it's not easy to get out once you're in.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It also has antivirus and DDoS mitigation capabilities. We have enabled these features."
"When you choose to go with F5, be sure to size your box properly so that the capacity is taken care of."
"The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features."
"The solution is very robust, and I like the setup."
"We can monitor IP locations, but we have constraints from each country, it has a replication feature, and licenses can be shared, taking turns with each license."
"With F5 Advanced WAF, it was protection for online publications and for our customers that caused us to choose the platform."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution isn't too expensive. The license allows you to license what you need and leave out what you don't need."
"It seems to provide a bit of useful information on website health."
"Not only did SiteLock's website scanner find the issue with my website, but with SiteLock I was able to implement a security system to prevent future breaches."
 

Cons

"While F5 Advanced WAF does limit the number of partners in certain regions to ensure successful business transactions, they could also benefit from expanding their partnerships and making it easier for more people to learn about and become experts in F5 Advanced WAF. By doing so, they could increase the reach and exposure of their solution, similar to how Cisco has become widely recognized in the security industry."
"I would like to see improved features in the F5 Advanced WAF solution, especially with a focus on enabling Kubernetes fully."
"You have to buy another module with an extra license, to have the authentication feature."
"Users would like to have an additional IP intelligence license to handle this within WAF itself without needing to engage with the SOC team."
"F5 Advanced WAF sells perpetual licenses as perpetual assets during sales without informing me that support ends after a few years."
"They could provide better pricing."
"F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at."
"The solution's dashboard could be improved. When you're moving from policy to policy, the logs and the integration of the logs in other systems aren't straightforward."
"Sitelock may perform a useful service, but be wary of giving them your credit card information."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is expensive. Its price should be better. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. Its licensing is also based on the model. There are no additional costs."
"There is an annual subscription for this solution."
"I think the price is very high."
"A yearly license for F5 Advanced WAF is expensive."
"The solution is very expensive so should only be used in the right environment."
"There are various plans available for Fortinet FortiWeb Cloud WAF as a Service, including a trial version."
"I would rate the pricing as seven out of ten"
"F5 Advanced WAF is not a cost-effective solution. Although they are attempting to reduce prices with their VE and cloud options, they are more expensive than other solutions. The solution is more expensive on average."
"You can't just stop auto-renew from your billing panel, the way you can with reputable businesses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Transportation Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise16
Large Enterprise31
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for F5 Advanced WAF?
F5 Advanced WAF is somewhat costly compared to other vendors, but it is worth the investment due to the stability it provides to the environment and infrastructure.
What needs improvement with F5 Advanced WAF?
Improvements could be made regarding the log information from the backend CLI. There are enhancements needed; if a request gets blocked on the TCP layer, there should be traces or data to verify wh...
What is your primary use case for F5 Advanced WAF?
My main use case for F5 Advanced WAF is to protect external and internal applications from cyber attacks and to prevent malicious payloads and malicious data from reaching servers. Even if maliciou...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MAXIMUS, Vivo, American Systems, Bangladesh Post Office, City Bank
galaxyguitar.com, robertasinc.com, indiarunning.com, comprarenpr.com, idbasolutions.com, newgrip.com
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 Advanced WAF vs. SiteLock and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.