We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and NGINX Plus 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 friendly user interface is valuable."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"The solution is stable."
"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 WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"It performs very well. That's one of the primary reasons we use NGINX."
"The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions."
"With NGINX, I appreciate its ability to route traffic geographically."
"NGINX Plus also has NGINX App Protect. It's a separate module, which is inspired by the F5 apps."
"Using NGINX Plus for web traffic distribution is fantastic. It offers performance similar to physical load balancers but with added flexibility."
"Application Gateway with application-level firewall tool and load distributor and balancer (also serves for A/B testing)."
"The product is resilient."
"The most valuable features are the gateway and the ability to publish to sites."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"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."
"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."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"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."
"The scaling should be built into the software rather than configured from an outside source."
"It would be good if NGINX provided a graphical user interface."
"If NGINX brings some features for health check in the open source version, it would be better. "
"Only improvement needed that I would point to is scalability. With it, I mean clusterized organisation on a low level. At the moment, the best alternative is RHEL HA."
"I would suggest adding GUI-based configuration panels to NGINX Plus to simplify setup and management tasks."
"Make modules easier to enable or disable. The beauty and ugly side of the NGINX modules is you have to know how to compile the module. For beginners or non-very technical aspirant(s) going for NGINX, they have to learn how to compile the modules."
"The biggest room for improvement would be to allow NGINX Core machines to cluster for memory zones in some way with a plug and play module. "
"Our most challenging part was to run an older PHP website reverse-proxied through NGINX. That was not fun."
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 NGINX Plus is ranked 5th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 28 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while NGINX Plus is rated 8.8. 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 NGINX Plus writes "Quick installation and very easy to manage while doing orchestration or automation". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Radware Alteon and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas NGINX Plus is most compared with IIS, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Loadbalancer.org. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. NGINX Plus 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.