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.
"We can host any DB or application on the solution."
"We preferred the product based on its cost. AWS WAF is an out-of-the-box solution and integrates with the AWS services that we use. It's natively integrated with AWS."
"The tool’s stability is very good."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of AWS WAF is the extra layer of security that I have when connecting to my web applications."
"The access instruction feature is the most valuable. This is what we use the most."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"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."
"Routing and load balancing are its most valuable features."
"The v11 clustering is a new technology they have brought in that does not require improvement. They are the leader in it."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"It is an easy way to build application policies (graphical)."
"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."
"I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing."
"The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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."
"The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."
"We have issues with reporting, troubleshooting, and analytics. AWS WAF needs to bring costs down."
"The setup is complicated."
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies."
"Initial setup is tricky, if you do not understand the design of this product."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."
"Certificate management needs improvement. I would like automated deployment of new certificates without manual intervention to be in the next release of this product."
"I'm not very sure about the security with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have our own private data center, but we are going to migrate our private data center into the Azure cloud environment. Security will then be a major concern when we migrate our own whole infrastructure to the public cloud."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"Right now, there are a lot of products within F5's portfolio. They acquired a couple of companies like NGINX and Volterra. Some features and technologies overlapped when this acquisition occurred. They need to refine it and come up with a single, proper solution. F5 should focus more on zero trust network access (ZTNA).They should be more focused on that framework because the industry is moving towards that. Everyone is talking about SASE and zero trust."
"Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved."
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, Imperva Web Application Firewall, F5 Advanced WAF and Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and HAProxy. 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.
