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.
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
I would rate the technical support of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) nine out of ten.
IT Manager at Chong Hua Hospital
Customer support is quite good but could be faster.
Network Engineer at Stryker
Overall, my experience with F5 is very good compared to Radware.
Security Analyst at IBM
 

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.
 

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.
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
The stability of AWS WAF is generally good;
Security Engineer Dev Sec Ops at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
 

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.
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
Compared to firewalls, WAFs generally provide limited stateful analysis capabilities.
Security Engineer at a computer software 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
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 stability of AWS WAF is generally good.
Security Engineer Dev Sec Ops at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 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
62
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 6.6% compared to last year.
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), on the other hand, focuses on Application Delivery Controllers (ADC), holds 11.6% mindshare, down 16.1% since last year.
Web Application Firewall (WAF) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AWS WAF3.9%
Imperva Application Security Platform7.3%
Cloudflare5.0%
Other83.8%
Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)11.6%
NetScaler11.6%
HAProxy8.3%
Other68.5%
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2849304 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Cloud Security at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Centralized web firewalling has reduced our attack surface and protects multi‑cloud applications
AWS WAF can be improved by not being too sensitive for some data because with some XML, it is sometimes very sensitive. When we upload videos or photos, it is flagged as a malicious pattern, and sometimes it is not sensitive enough because some query patterns that have the capability to perform malicious actions still result in false positives from AWS. It would be better for AWS WAF if it not only had logs but also specific payloads or something that directly included the specific logs so we can have more detail in our analysis. I think it should be better if they improve their capabilities in reducing the attack surface and also have better visibility for OWASP top 10 web applications and the API. Regarding AWS WAF's AI capabilities, its governance and security are very good because our attack surface is mostly reduced. The new dashboard is a bit complicated; it is easier for non-technical users, but for technical professionals, it is sometimes confusing. While the security itself is good and the governance is good, I think it needs to improve the UI or the flow itself. The accuracy and reliability of AWS WAF's output is better than others. With the free version, it has a good filter with the attack surface and the reliability is good, but sometimes we need to adjust. With the free version, we also have to pay some amount of money if the number exceeds the default provided by AWS.
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.
919,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction 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: October 2026.
919,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.