We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC and HAProxy 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."The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"The solution provides high-level services such as availability, redundancy, and load balancing between servers."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"From a technical perspective, it is the most scalable device from Fortinet."
"Simple to use and easy to integrate."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading capacity."
"The GSLB, the DR side, is the best part. Because we had our main side in one city, we created another, and we had a complete MPLS over the internet. We used the GSLB and data loss for our business applications."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"It is a crucial tool in ensuring smooth service provision without any interruptions."
"It has allowed us to evenly distribute the load across a number of servers, and check their health and automatically react to errors."
"We use it as a load balancer for our application servers."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"Tech support is super-quick to respond, and always on target with answers specific to the current issue."
"I have found HAProxy very helpful in replicating production environment architecture in a development and testing environment."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"The product’s price could be reduced. Also, some of its features need to be more advanced."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"FortiADC is complex to configure so the interface should be improved."
"Fortinet FortiADC should include an advanced-level SD-WAN."
"Technical support and documentation could both be improved."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"HAProxy is very weak in the logging and monitoring part and requires improvement."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source."
"The configuration should be more friendly, perhaps with a Web interface. For example, I work with the ClusterControl product for Severalnines, and we have a Web interface to deploy the HAProxy load-balancer."
"The basic clustering is not usable in our very specific setup. The clustering is mainly a configuration replication and is great in a case of active-passive usage. In the case of an active-active (or with more than two nodes) where the configuration is not fully identical, it cannot be used as-is."
"They should introduce one feature that I know many people, including me, are waiting for: HAProxy should have provide hot-swipe for back-end servers. Also, they need a more detailed GUI for monitoring and configuration."
"The product does not have any new technologies."
"Improving the documentation with multiple examples and scenarios would be beneficial. Most users encounter similar situations, so having a variety of scenarios readily available on the tool's website would be helpful. For instance, if I were part of the HAProxy team, I'd create a webpage with different scenarios and provide files for each scenario. This way, users wouldn't have to start from scratch every time."
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Amazon Elastic Load Balancing. See our Fortinet FortiADC vs. HAProxy 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.
