We performed a comparison between AWS WAF and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: AWS WAF's pricing is more affordable, but users find that technical support for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM is better, and mention a positive ROI.
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to integrate central sets. It protects from intrusion attacks such as scripting and SQL injections."
"The most valuable feature is the addition of managed tools that help us create customizable rules. In case we want to block a particular request, we can make use of those rules."
"The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to limit access based on geographical location by restricting specific IP addresses."
"As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
"Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources."
"We do not have to maintain the solution."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"F5's attack signatures and automation are the most valuable features. The disaster recovery capabilities are also excellent. You don't need to do anything. It has automatic failover from production."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful."
"BIG-IP LTM's most valuable feature is that it allows you to seamlessly add more servers without impacting your application's configuration."
"iRule feature is useful."
"It makes the publishing of applications to the Internet safer."
"It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."
"I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps."
"We need more support as we go global."
"When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."
"It will be helpful if the product recommends rules that we can implement."
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"The initial setup can be complex - it's quite flexible in terms of configuration, but the person configuring it needs to understand the application side, the network side, and the server."
"Initial setup is tricky, if you do not understand the design of this product."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"The ASM administration is quite complex. The topic itself is pretty complex, so it is not easy to provide a nice, clean interface. There are a lot of references and dependencies in-between the different subareas."
"If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better."
"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."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS WAF is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 52 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 8.0, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "A highly stable solution that helps mitigate different kinds of bot attacks and SQL injection attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". AWS WAF is most compared with Azure Web Application Firewall, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, F5 Advanced WAF, Imperva Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.