Compare AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP

AWS WAF is ranked 9th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 7 reviews while F5 BIG-IP is ranked 1st in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 31 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.8, while F5 BIG-IP is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Makes sure files are protected, but the solution should be more proactive in detecting threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP writes "It could be hard to scale because we will be encrypting and decrypting. The connection through the API Gateway worked in no time, which was fantastic". AWS WAF is most compared with Akamai Kona, Imperva Incapsula and F5 BIG-IP, whereas F5 BIG-IP is most compared with Citrix NetScaler ADC, HAProxy and NGINX Plus. See our AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
AWS WAF Logo
3,116 views|2,483 comparisons
F5 BIG-IP Logo
40,304 views|31,578 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Robert Smith
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,399 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match.The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less.The customized billing is the most valuable feature.It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed.It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need.It's simple, easy to use.The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications.The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system.

Read more »

F5 BIG-IP is used with good applications and functions as an application firewall with additional features. We will not use any feature or any service unless there is a business case and there is a need for implementation.We're able to do load balancing and global load balancing. When you marry those two products together, you can do a lot more. We're able to deliver our applications more securely and faster. It has improved our deliverability where we have more service across the shared data centers. We can intelligently reach all of those client connections across all of the servers and do it fairly quickly. It has helped improve our application delivery and performance.It is a fast and available solution.It is the perfect solution when you have high workloads in your IT environment.It integrates with AWS WAF, which makes it easy to deploy without changes to your infrastructure.It improves the overall performance of applications by decreasing the burden on servers associated with managing and maintaining applications and network sessions, as well as by performing application-specific tasks.Initial setup is easy and pretty standard.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.

Read more »

Cons
The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler.We need more support as we go global.The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on.In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications.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.

Read more »

The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us.The license terms for "non-commercial" will are challenging for us.There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues not affecting production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. An ordeal for the manager.I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup.I would like them to have more flexible models.Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery.‚ÄčNeeds 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.We would like to see load balancing between the cloud and the on-premise, a straightforward deployment feature.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
There are different scale options available for WAF.There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.It's an annual subscription.

Read more »

They are expensive.We purchased through the AWS Marketplace because it was a popular way to go, and we were intrigued. The price of this product is not an issue. They have good pricing and licensing.Unless the price difference is large, this is not the primary concern for the product. The performance and product-related issues (secure for VPN, multi-function for network device, etc.) are the keys.I would recommend that the cost be lowered.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.The price is high.We have found the pricing and licensing on AWS to be competitive.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.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
382,399 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
3,116
Comparisons
2,483
Reviews
7
Average Words per Review
372
Avg. Rating
7.9
Views
40,304
Comparisons
31,578
Reviews
28
Average Words per Review
405
Avg. Rating
7.9
Top Comparisons
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Also Known As
AWS Web Application FirewallBIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
Learn
Amazon
Video Not Available
F5
Overview

AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.

The BIG-IP family of products offers the application intelligence that network managers need to ensure applications are fast, secure, and available. All BIG-IP products share a common underlying architecture, F5's Traffic Management Operating System (TMOS), which provides unified intelligence, flexibility, and programmability. Together, BIG-IP's powerful platforms, advanced modules, and centralized management system make up the most comprehensive set of application delivery tools in the industry.
Offer
Learn more about AWS WAF
Learn more about F5 BIG-IP
Sample Customers
eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao InternationalRiken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company36%
Comms Service Provider16%
Media Company15%
Retailer10%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider26%
Financial Services Firm22%
Manufacturing Company11%
Healthcare Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company27%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm10%
Government6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business29%
Midsize Enterprise29%
Large Enterprise43%
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise14%
Large Enterprise63%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business30%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise49%
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. F5 BIG-IP and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,399 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email