We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Loadbalancer.org 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."For the past two and a half years, we have not had a need to open a tech support ticket. It is really stable. In the past, our experience with tech support was that they were extremely helpful."
"The solution is flexible."
"A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"The most valuable features in A10 Networks Thunder ADC are the ease of configuration, user-friendliness, and simplicity to sell to customers."
"The Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) is simple to use."
"Feature-wise, A10 Networks Thunder ADC is better for troubleshooting...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"A lot of our SSL management is done on the front-end side, so there is one pane of glass for a lot of our security certificates. It gives us visibility. It also falls under when certificates are going to expire. Even for servers that are coming down, we can see how that affects the traffic flow by using the services map."
"A10 Networks Thunder ADC is an easy-to-use and flexible solution."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained."
"For now, it's stable."
"We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us, to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background."
"It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away."
"The performance is good."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"A graphical dashboard for analyzing performance is needed."
"The solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"The costs can be quite high."
"The tool's load-balancing feature should improve."
"The interface and integrated custom applications can be a bit difficult."
"When it comes to support, there is always room for improvement. First call resolution is not always there for urgent issues. The first call resolution is something that could be improved upon."
"They need to make the user interface (GUI) a bit more usable and intuitive. Some features can be a little difficult to find at times. Sometimes, the workflow in the GUI doesn't match the workflow of an actual workflow. E.g., if I want to create a load balancer application, sometimes you've got to do things a bit out of order in the GUI in order to make it work right."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Kemp LoadMaster and HAProxy, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Radware Alteon. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. Loadbalancer.org 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.