We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Load Balancing and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is very well integrated into Amazon's services."
"The feature that I like the most is the scalability. The solutions I build often have many pieces, which are very complicated. If a client comes to me with a design, my developer has made this as a template or a cloud formation script. It's a design on paper, and I want it executed a certain way. I can do that quickly and repeatedly with AWS. That is a considerable advantage because I can take that template and do it five times in different zones. That is an excellent feature based on a template, et cetera."
"It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy."
"Amazon Elastic Load Balancing transfers the data securely from servers to users and splits the traffic based on peak times."
"It is a very scalable solution in which you can add more servers instantly."
"It is straightforward to deploy."
"The solution offers good load balancing."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scaling."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is good."
"Along with load balancing, we perform a lot of packet inspections, URL rewriting, and SSL interceptions via iRule."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"The value and impact of using F5 BIG-IP LTM for application delivery control in our organization are significant."
"The tech support we got from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager directly was pretty good."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"It is stable."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"We faced some issues with the health check."
"The solution needs to guarantee stability because multiple loads behind a load balancer can cause service unavailability."
"One issue that we faced with ALB was that leaf-level certificate validation was not happening. It is not that user-friendly in that aspect."
"It would be good if we had a product that integrates well with third-party vendors. Some of our customers want a multi-cloud solution. They don't want to be tied up to or be in just one cloud."
"The machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict."
"The product's stability is an area with a slight shortcoming, which can be improved."
"They should improve the solution's pricing."
"The reporting could be simplified so that the client sees a report of what they cached at the end of the month and the number of hits. It should have metrics above and beyond their Google analytics, etc. You can't do that with the solutions from AWS. You have to build sophisticated cloud trails, reports, dashboards, etc. The setup is significant, and it's hard to manage. You'll need to hire someone or pay a consultant on a regular basis to manage it, and it's not for the faint of heart."
"Security and Reporting."
"Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."
"An area for improvement in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is that it's a high-priced product."
"Needs 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."
"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."
"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."
More Amazon Elastic Load Balancing Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is ranked 11th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 9 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is rated 8.4, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing writes "A tool that offers its users resiliency, high availability, and a great scalability". 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". Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy and NGINX Plus, 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 Amazon Elastic Load Balancing vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) 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.
