We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer 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."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 friendly user interface is valuable."
"The WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"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."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"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."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"I estimate that this product has saved our company hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in possible downtime from previous load balancers. We make a lot of our money from online sales, so it is critical to have 99.9% uptime."
"The most valuable feature of HAProxy is that its open source."
"It is stable. Period. Will not fail unless you do something wrong."
"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"The technical support has been, in one word, perfect. Every time I call, I’m on the phone with a representative within five minutes who is highly skilled and willing to help, whether in the case of critical issues or simple advice."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"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."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"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."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"I would like to evaluate load-balancing algorithms other than round robin and SSL offloading. Also, it would be helpful if I could logically divide the HAProxy load-balancing into multiple entities so that I would install one HA Proxy LB application which could be used for different Web servers for different applications. I am not sure if these features are available."
"It needs proper HTTP/2 support."
"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."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"We need to handle new connections by dropping, or queuing them while the HAProxy restarts, and because HAProxy does not handle split config files."
"Documentation could be improved."
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 HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. 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 HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, NGINX Plus, Radware Alteon and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Traefik Enterprise. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer 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.