We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC and Loadbalancer.org 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."Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"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 main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"It's a good product because it supports all the features that ADC solutions in the market can support, like F5 solutions, for example, such as the LTM of F5."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us, to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"I think it would be helpful if Fortinet put more video examples on their cookbook site."
"The configuration is relatively complex."
"I had a terrible experience with Fortinet support. I only used support once when I bought the solution. I got no response for two days. However, I believe that it's no longer the case. Fortinet solutions have problems when they're launched. For example, we had issues with Fortinet's authenticator when it came out. We also had trouble with FortiNAC in the beginning."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale."
"Fortinet FortiADC should include an advanced-level SD-WAN."
"The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
"If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster and HAProxy, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our Fortinet FortiADC vs. Loadbalancer.org 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.