AWS WAF vs F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Logo
16,768 views|13,139 comparisons
82% willing to recommend
F5 Logo
9,964 views|8,290 comparisons
83% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary
Updated on Oct 30, 2022

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.

  • Ease of Deployment: Some AWS WAF users consider the setup to be simple while others find it complex. The majority of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM find the deployment to be complex.
  • Features: Users of both products are happy with their stability and scalability.

    AWS WAF users like the solution’s access instructions feature, its flexibility, and that it doesn’t require hardware resources because it’s in the cloud. Reviewers mention the documentation could be improved, as could the solution’s UI.

    F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM users like that the solution is easy to use and has good load balancing features. Users say they would like to see fewer false positives and better reporting. Like AWS WAF, they mention that the UI needs improvement.
  • Pricing: AWS WAF users consider the pricing to be affordable. In contrast, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM users say the pricing is very expensive.
  • Service and Support: AWS WAF users feel the support could be better. In contrast, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM users find the support to be very good.
  • ROI: Users of AWS WAF do not mention ROI. In contrast, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager LTM users report a positive one.

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.

To learn more, read our detailed AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Report (Updated: January 2023).
772,679 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The customizable features are good.""The solution's initial setup process is easy.""Their technical support has been quite good.""If hackers try to insert bugs, the tool blocks it.""AWS WAF has a lot of integrated features and services. For example, there are security services that can be integrated very well for our customers.""The security firewall plus the features that protect against database injections or scripting,""Its best feature is that it is on the cloud and does not require local hardware resources.""AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS."

More AWS WAF Pros →

"The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system.""Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful.""Stable and scalable network traffic management solution for applications. It has good performance.""iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good.""Initial setup was straightforward. We were up and running in three hours.""It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware.""It has so many features. ​First of all, it has a full proxy architecture, it has multiple modules. The best feature is the WAF, the web application firewall module. It also has cashing type capabilities. It has all kinds of load-balancing algorithms based on your IT requirements.""Our experience has been very good, in terms of performance, and securing our application infrastructure."

More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pros →

Cons
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.""One area for improvement in AWS WAF could be the limitation on the number of rules, particularly those from third-party sources, within the free tier.""The technical support does not respond to bugs in the coding of the product.""The product must provide more features.""For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends.""The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on.""Technical support for AWS WAF needs improvement.""It is sometimes a lot of work going through the rules and making sure you have everything covered for a use case. It is just the way rules are set and maintained in this solution. Some UI changes will probably be helpful. It is not easy to find the documentation of new features. Documentation not being updated is a common problem with all services, including this one. You have different versions of the console, and the options shown in the documentation are not there. For a new feature, there is probably an announcement about being released, but when it comes out, there is no actual documentation about how to use it. This makes you either go to technical support or community, which probably doesn't have an idea either. The documentation on the cloud should be the latest one. Finding information about a specific event can be a bit challenging. For this solution, not much documentation is available in the community. It could be because it is a new tool. Whenever there is an issue, it is just not that simple to resolve, especially if you don't have premium support. You have pretty much nowhere to look around, and you just need to poke around to try and make it work right."

More AWS WAF Cons →

"LTM would be improved with the inclusion of signature-based blocking.""It would be good to have better traffic and better data. It would be nice to have more granularity to see packets in terms of the header details, the analytics, etc. It would be nice if that was also part of it and to have analytics added to the traffic.""I would like to see better integration.""In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version.""The solution's hardware quality needs improvement.""My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey.""Internet and cloud support could be improved.""LTM's cloud capabilities could be improved. Cloud providers all offer load balancing, but you can't get the same level of security. F5's cloud service is still not on par with its on-prem service."

More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It's an annual subscription."
  • "There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
  • "There are different scale options available for WAF."
  • "AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
  • "It has a variable pricing scheme."
  • "We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
  • "It's quite affordable. It's in the middle."
  • "The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
  • More AWS WAF Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Though functionality is high, its cost can be considered slightly higher than its competitors​."
  • "The licensing pricing seems relatively easy enough to get your head around. I would advise anyone to ensure that you have a conversation with an F5 consultant before purchasing, as you would with most products."
  • "Take a look at the modules that you are going to use. Look into the best bundles for them."
  • "The only area that has room for improvement would be pricing, so its competitors do not have a say."
  • "If your IT budget is good, go for it."
  • "This product is costly from a licensing perspective considering its competitors."
  • "Check other vendors like Cisco, Citrix or A10 Networks. There are plenty in the market with which you can achieve same thing."
  • "Great product for the money. But they can get really expensive, so get what meets your needs."
  • More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
    772,679 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Hi Varun I have had experienced with several WAF deployments and deep technical assessments of the following: 1. Imperva WAF 2. F5 WAF 3. Polarisec Cloud WAF Typical limitations on cloud WAF… more »
    Top Answer:Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is its highly configurable rules system.
    Top Answer:The support from F5 BIG-IP LTM is good.
    Top Answer:There are a few licensing options available for F5 BIG-IP LTM. You can have a perpetual license which is a lifetime license. You then only need to renew the support, if you choose to open a ticket… more »
    Top Answer:The pricing must be more flexible. We get billed for firewalls based on the usage. It will be helpful if the solution provides such flexibility.
    Ranking
    Views
    16,768
    Comparisons
    13,139
    Reviews
    30
    Average Words per Review
    415
    Rating
    8.4
    Views
    9,964
    Comparisons
    8,290
    Reviews
    26
    Average Words per Review
    489
    Rating
    8.5
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    AWS Web Application Firewall
    F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
    Learn More
    Overview

    AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) is a firewall security system that monitors incoming and outgoing traffic for applications and websites based on your pre-defined web security rules. AWS WAF defends applications and websites from common Web attacks that could otherwise damage application performance and availability and compromise security.

    You can create rules in AWS WAF that can include blocking specific HTTP headers, IP addresses, and URI strings. These rules prevent common web exploits, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. Once defined, new rules are deployed within seconds, and can easily be tracked so you can monitor their effectiveness via real-time insights. These saved metrics include URIs, IP addresses, and geo locations for each request.

    AWS WAF Features

    Some of the solution's top features include:

    • Web traffic filtering: Get an extra layer of security by creating a centralized set of rules, easily deployable across multiple websites. These rules filter out web traffic based on conditions like HTTP headers, URIs, and IP addresses. This is very helpful for protection against exploits such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting as well as attacks from third-party applications.
    • Bot control: Malicious bot traffic can consume excessive resources and cause downtime. Gain visibility and control over bot traffic with a managed rule group. You can easily block harmful bots, such as scrapers and crawlers, and you can allow common bots, like search engines and status monitors.
    • Fraud prevention: Effectively defend your application against bot attacks by monitoring your application’s login page with a managed rule group that prevents hackers from accessing user accounts using compromised credentials. The managed rule group helps protect against credential stuffing attacks, brute-force login attempts, and other harmful login activities.
    • API for AWS WAF Management: Automatically create and maintain rules and integrate them into your development process.
    • Metrics for real-time visibility: Receive real-time metrics and captures of raw requests with details about geo-locations, IP addresses, URIs, user agents, and referrers. Integrate seamlessly with Amazon CloudWatch to set up custom alarms when events or attacks occur. These metrics provide valuable data intelligence that can be used to create new rules that significantly improve your application protections.
    • Firewall management: AWS Firewall Manager automatically scans and notifies the security team when there is a policy violation, so they can swiftly take action. When new resources are created, your security team can guarantee that they comply with your organization’s security rules.

    Reviews from Real Users

    AWS WAF stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its user-friendly interface and its integration capabilities.

    Kavin K., a security analyst at M2P Fintech, writes, “I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through.”

    F5 BIG-IP LTM optimizes the speed and reliability of your apps via both network and application layers. Using real-time protocol and traffic management decisions based on app and server and connection management conditions, and TCP and content offloading, BIG-IP LTM dramatically improves application and infrastructure responsiveness. BIG-IP LTM's architecture includes protocol awareness to control traffic for the most important applications. BIG-IP LTM tracks the dynamic performance levels of servers and delivers SSL performance and visibility for inbound and outbound traffic, to protect the user experience by encrypting everything from the client to the server.

    BIG-IP LTM provides enterprise-class Application Delivery Controller (ADC). You get granular layer 7 control, SSL offloading and acceleration capabilities, and advanced scaling technologies that deliver performance and reliability on-demand. The highly optimized TCP/IP stack combines TCP/IP techniques and improvements in the latest RFCs with extensions to minimize the effect of congestion and packet loss and recovery. Independent testing tools and customer experiences show LTM's TCP stack delivers up to a 2x performance gain for users and a 4x increase in bandwidth efficiency.

    Sample Customers
    eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
    Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Media Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Insurance Company6%
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider20%
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Media Company6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm17%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Government9%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business37%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise63%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business33%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise50%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise68%
    Buyer's Guide
    AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)
    January 2023
    Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and other solutions. Updated: January 2023.
    772,679 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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 "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". 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.