We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and Kemp LoadMaster 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."What's most valuable in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its deployment capability, the ability to deploy in a dispersed service, with the service engines that can disperse and have a single control plane that can control the load balancing services across any available platform, wherever needed. The analytics of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and flexibility of deployment are its most valuable features and the reasons why many people buy it."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"The most valuable feature of the solution for my organization is its UI since it allows us to see the clusters while providing a very specific and good overall understanding."
"Its visibility and login mechanism are the best parts. In addition to the great visibility it has a great dashboard and an easy to configure graphic user interface, a beautiful GUI."
"The solution is stable."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"The pricing of the solution is valuable."
"The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency."
"It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs."
"The old process of manually having to redirect Outlook Web Access traffic and Email traffic to a second server is a thing of the past."
"We really like the performance of this solution."
"The security features, load balancing, built-in templates, and the easy to implement virtual IPs are great."
"The most valuable feature that I found is the load balancing feature, it is the core function of the product."
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"One struggle with Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its integration with other VMware products. Integration could be improved in the solution so that you have a more unified control plane with it and other data center security and networking products that VMware sells. There has been a bit of a lag on the roadmap of new features that have come out there recently, but better interoperability with the hyperscale environments such as the AWS, Azure, GCPs of the world, and simpler deployment and interoperability with those existing tools, are areas that are receiving attention and could use additional attention today. These are the areas for improvement in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The ability to see live traffic is not great and can be improved."
"It would be helpful if there were a way to incorporate tooltips on the fields so that we don't have to dig through documentation."
"To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, that there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools."
"Perhaps Kemp could offer some training videos."
"The auth website of ESP is really lacking. It’s not responsive (mobile friendly) and the procedure of changing the website is difficult. We tend to avoid using pre-auth for that reason."
"Hardware version needs a dual power solution."
"In the next release, Kemp should include the ability for LoadMaster to create different DNS record types."
"The only thing that I miss is that the TMG server was giving me live information about who is connected and what is the request about."
More Avi Networks Software Load Balancer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is ranked 9th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer writes "Easy to set up and has good integration into the host environment but needs better third party integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, NGINX Plus and Fortinet FortiADC, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Imperva DDoS. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. Kemp LoadMaster 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.