Growth in system complexity increases the need for automated log analysis techniques, such as Log-based Anomaly Detection (LAD). While deep learning (DL) methods have been widely used for LAD, traditional machine learning (ML) techniques can also perform well depending on the context and dataset. Semi-supervised techniques deserve the same attention as they offer practical advantages over fully supervised methods. Current evaluations mainly focus on detection accuracy, but this alone is insufficient to determine the suitability of a technique for a given LAD task. Other aspects to consider include training and prediction times as well as the sensitivity to hyperparameter tuning, which in practice matters to engineers. This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study evaluating a wide range of supervised and semi-supervised, traditional and deep ML techniques across four criteria: detection accuracy, time performance, and sensitivity to hyperparameter tuning in both detection accuracy and time performance. The experimental results show that supervised traditional and deep ML techniques fare similarly in terms of their detection accuracy and prediction time on most of the benchmark datasets considered in our study. Moreover, overall, sensitivity analysis to hyperparameter tuning with respect to detection accuracy shows that supervised traditional ML techniques are less sensitive than deep learning techniques. Further, semi-supervised techniques yield significantly worse detection accuracy than supervised techniques.