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

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

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
5.7
AWS WAF offers cost-effective security by reducing the need for extra staff and effectively blocking threats.
Sentiment score
6.6
Many companies found F5 BIG-IP LTM beneficial for security and deployment, with mixed views on ROI depending on pricing.
With AWS WAF, it is easier for us to block unwanted malicious DDoS attacks and threats from coming into our web application.
Dev Ops Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
The major return on investment is the security of our data.
IT Manager at Chong Hua Hospital
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.6
AWS WAF support is prompt and knowledgeable, but experiences vary in resolution speed and service costs.
Sentiment score
6.7
F5 BIG-IP LTM support experiences vary, with mixed reviews on responsiveness, knowledge, community resources, and regional support efficacy.
Resolving issues can take time because the support personnel may lack product expertise, leading to delays.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
They reach out when you send them a ticket, and within 24 hours or less, someone is able to get back to you to solve your problem.
Dev Ops Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
I would rate the technical support of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) nine out of ten.
IT Manager at Chong Hua Hospital
Overall, my experience with F5 is very good compared to Radware.
Security Analyst at IBM
Customer support is quite good but could be faster.
Network Engineer at Stryker
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
AWS WAF is highly scalable, versatile for various infrastructures, but some users desire expanded features for broader adaptability.
Sentiment score
7.4
F5 BIG-IP LTM offers scalable integration with AWS, suitable for enterprises, but requires careful sizing to avoid constraints.
AWS WAF does scale in the sense that it is fully managed and has automatic scaling.
Dev Ops Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
AWS WAF is stable, effectively blocking threats, with minor issues in custom rules, and continuous improvements enhance reliability.
Sentiment score
8.0
F5 BIG-IP LTM is stable and reliable, with occasional bugs manageable through updates, supported by responsive customer service.
Since it protects web applications from common attacks such as SQL injection and XSS, it is very stable.
Dev Ops Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
In terms of reliability, I would rate AWS WAF about six out of ten due to the need for improved signature sets.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We faced issues with AWS WAF when writing the custom rules.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
 

Room For Improvement

AWS WAF requires enhanced features, security, user interface, documentation, seamless integrations, and added automation for improved effectiveness.
F5 BIG-IP LTM needs better cost-effectiveness, user interface, cloud integration, documentation, security, automation, and a flexible licensing model.
Compared to firewalls, WAFs generally provide limited stateful analysis capabilities.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
The level of granularity is not great, and as you cross a certain threshold, the cost goes up by twenty or thirty percent every time.
Security Engineer Dev Sec Ops at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I expect faster resolutions when providing contact numbers while raising cases, as other companies typically do.
Network Engineer at Stryker
The pricing of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is on the higher side compared to competitors, but it is worth it.
Security Analyst at IBM
 

Setup Cost

AWS WAF pricing is seen as affordable but can be costly in high-demand scenarios like DDoS attacks.
F5 BIG-IP LTM is feature-rich but costly, especially in AWS; consult F5 for tailored licensing options.
Due to our status as an AWS shop, AWS WAF is cost-effective for us, and we benefit from discounts due to our extensive use of AWS services.
Security Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
 

Valuable Features

AWS WAF enhances security with configurable rules, seamless AWS integration, scalability, and ease of deployment for threat protection.
F5 BIG-IP LTM excels in load balancing, security, and customization, enhancing performance and reliability for complex network environments.
The biggest benefit of AWS WAF for us is to filter malicious requests, so we can protect our environment and application from malicious actors.
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
It has also helped to improve the posture of our application, prevent all DDoS attacks, and unnecessary traffic and SQL injection that is reducing the performance of our application.
Dev Ops Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
The specific outcomes showing how AWS WAF has helped our organization include improving our security posture by reducing the attack surface and reducing malicious attacks.
Senior Cloud Security at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
The impact of SSL offloading on reducing server load and latency is very much positive because whatever traffic we receive, we encrypt at our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) level, which has definitely reduced the additional load and SSL decryption load on the servers, so it has very much helped us and it is very smooth; it will not take much time and will not impact our regular traffic.
Security Analyst at IBM
R-series has better CPU and memory, leading to higher throughput with minimal downtime, making it a significant improvement over the I-series.
Network Engineer at Stryker
One of the most beneficial features of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is its ability to identify compromised traffic and its capabilities in authentication.
IT Manager at Chong Hua Hospital
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS WAF
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (8th)
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Man...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
124
Ranking in other categories
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

AWS WAF and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. AWS WAF is designed for Web Application Firewall (WAF) and holds a mindshare of 3.9%, down 6.9% compared to last year.
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), on the other hand, focuses on Application Delivery Controllers (ADC), holds 11.9% mindshare, down 15.9% since last year.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF3.9%
Imperva Application Security Platform7.4%
Cloudflare5.0%
Other83.7%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)11.9%
NetScaler11.3%
HAProxy8.1%
Other68.69999999999999%
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

Azam S M - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Lead at Danat Fz LLC
Has successfully filtered malicious traffic and allowed country-specific access controls
For improvement in AWS WAF, we can have better monitoring. One of the things that should be improved in AWS WAF is the monitoring; we need to identify the requests and where they are coming from. If it's a bot, we should differentiate the requests, whether they are automated or not. The way we see it now is just mentioned as a percentage from bots and actual users, which should include proper graphs and detailed information. We also need a feature where we can filter specific requests. If there are scripts in the requests, we should be able to filter those requests to see if there are any scripts running from them.
edshyaa - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at Stryker
Load balancing has improved traffic distribution and currently supports high availability upgrades
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) offers effective load balancing methods that help distribute traffic across our servers, whether we have two or several. This load balancing feature stands out as it is the fundamental work we do with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). While I recognize there are many features, such as iRules, which I have not explored yet, we primarily work on VIPs, pool members, and traffic distribution. The load balancing algorithms' flexibility makes them very useful for our team, enabling us to choose different servers and manage load effectively. We use various methods based on user or application requirements, making the algorithms set up by F5 in the backend quite helpful. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) positively impacts our organization primarily through its load balancing capabilities. We avoid traffic overload on individual servers by placing backend servers behind F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) VIP. This load balancing helps us manage traffic effectively. Since the configuration of the I-series, we have had smooth performance, and with the recent migration to the R-series, it is working faster than before, providing positive outcomes for our operations. Since moving to the R-series, I notice improved performance; it is user-friendly and handles traffic efficiently. The upgrading process is different as we create tenants and a main host. R-series has better CPU and memory, leading to higher throughput with minimal downtime, making it a significant improvement over the I-series.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
912,788 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise28
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business62
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise86
 

Questions from the Community

What are the limitations of AWS WAF vs alternative WAFs?
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 is t...
How does AWS WAF compare to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?
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 ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS WAF?
AWS WAF is affordable; it depends on the number of rules you apply. The licensing cost for AWS WAF is just pay-as-you-go; it is a service-based model.
What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could improve file upload speeds when opening cases and attaching files; sometimes, downloading files like QKView takes time, depending on size. I expect faste...
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
My main use case for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is placing our applications on F5 and the backend servers on the pool. We also regularly renew SSL certificates before they expire, usuall...
 

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
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva, Radware, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: September 2026.
912,788 professionals have used our research since 2012.