ABSTRACT The emergence of influenza virus strains resistant to approved neuraminidase inhibitors and the time constrains after infection when these drugs can be effective constitute major drawbacks for this class of drugs. This highlights a critical need to discover new therapeutic agents that can be used for the treatment of influenza virus-infected patients. The use of broadly neutralizing anti-influenza monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) has been sought as an alternative immunotherapy against influenza infection. Here, we tested in mice previously characterized broadly neutralizing anti-hemagglutinin (HA) stalk MAbs prophylactically and therapeutically using different routes of administration. The efficacy of treatment against an influenza H1N1 pandemic virus challenge was compared between two systemic routes of administration, intraperitoneal (i.p.) and intravenous (i.v.), and two local routes, intranasal (i.n.) and aerosol (a.e.). The dose of MAb required for prophylactic protection was reduced by 10-fold in animals treated locally (i.n. or a.e.) compared with those treated systemically (i.p. or i.v.). Improved therapeutic protection was observed in animals treated i.n. on day 5 postinfection (60% survival) compared with those treated via the i.p. route (20% survival). An increase in therapeutic efficacy against other influenza virus subtypes (H5N1) was also observed when a local route of administration was used. Our findings demonstrate that local administration significantly decreases the amount of broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody required for protection against influenza, which highlights the potential use of MAbs as a therapeutic agent for influenza-associated disease.