We performed a comparison between HAProxy and Kong Mesh based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Isito, HAProxy, Kong and others in Service Mesh."The VRRP redundancy is also a mission-critical feature that works seamlessly. I can bring down a server live with minimal downtime because of this."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"HAProxy Enterprise Edition has been rock solid. We have essentially had no downtime caused by our load balancers in the last 10 months, because they’ve worked so well. Previously, our load balancers caused us multiple hours per year in downtime."
"It has allowed us to evenly distribute the load across a number of servers, and check their health and automatically react to errors."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"It is a crucial tool in ensuring smooth service provision without any interruptions."
"We did not need technical support because the documentation is good."
"I have found HAProxy very helpful in replicating production environment architecture in a development and testing environment."
"It is a scalable product."
"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."
"We would like to see dynamic ACL and port update support. Our infrastructure relies on randomly allocated ports and this feature would allow us to update without restarting the process."
"Documentation could be improved."
"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."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"It needs proper HTTP/2 support."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"If nbproc = 2, you will have two processes of HAProxy running. However, the stats of HAProxy will not be aggregated, meaning you don't really know the collective status in a single point of view."
"The initial setup is complicated. Although Kuma has its own CLI, CTL, and they say to use their CLI, if I have to build a generic solution, my personal preference would be to use Helm or another similar solution other than Kuma. If you have your own library CLI, it becomes hard for others to adopt it. For example, if I have to write some automation, infrastructure automation, I can't just use Kuma. I have to change my code to use Kuma's CTL, which is unfair because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit with my current automation structure. I have to do something extra, something additional, which I really don't like."
HAProxy is ranked 2nd in Service Mesh with 41 reviews while Kong Mesh is ranked 3rd in Service Mesh with 1 review. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Kong Mesh is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kong Mesh writes "Provides a unique advantage by offering a global view for all workloads and clusters within the mesh but lack of a robust community for open-source support". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy, whereas Kong Mesh is most compared with Istio, Envoy, HashiCorp Consul and Traefik Enterprise.
See our list of best Service Mesh vendors.
We monitor all Service Mesh 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.