We performed a comparison between Kemp LoadMaster and Radware Alteon 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."Using Kemp as a front-facing service appliance, it allows me to have the flexibility of swapping out real servers behind the scenes without any intervention from my network team."
"I like the way this solution handles multiple SSLs in different domains while still load balancing."
"Persistence is very valuable. This holds the connection information of the source and that connection is important to RDP and our APO calls. The connection has to be persisted to the original source to operate properly. We also use the subsections for sub-services to create services inside our services for our API resources, this is most awesome. We would not be able to do this without Kemp and offer this type of sub-service to route based on an API instance. It routes the traffic properly based on the sub-service type."
"The feature I find most valuable is load balancing with different algorithms."
"The Global WAF has saved us more than one time from unwanted traffic."
"From my personal experience, many firewalls provide Load Balancing functionalities, but Kemp Loadmaster has a lot of features and functionalities like what you can configure. So there are a lot of features but we use only five percent of it."
"The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency."
"The most valuable features for us are the Load Balancing and Web Application Firewall, as we have a lot of web applications."
"The most valuable aspect is that it establishes user security."
"It is easy to expand. Our clients are enterprise-size."
"I found the link load balancer and server load balancer are the most valuable."
"The most valuable aspect is the ability to customize the types of load-balancing scenarios needed for customized applications. Some of the load balancers on the market today are strictly out-of-hand load balancers for SSL or HTTP. Radware Alteon is most useful for customizing in-house applications based on ports and protocols."
"The command line interface is simple and very user-friendly."
"The health status information, with its highly detailed reporting, has saved us time on troubleshooting. We have the precise information needed that helps us find different types of situations."
"The device blocks threats and allows legitimate users to work correctly."
"The GUI was a valuable feature. It was uncomplicated and easy to use."
"The ability to see live traffic is not great and can be improved."
"Certificate installations could be simplified and modernized, and allowed to be monitored for expirations/issues."
"Although Kemp is very user-friendly, it lacks a more custom configuration."
"The GUI is rather technical and complex, so it could be improved by making it simpler and more user-friendly."
"The auth website of ESP is really lacking. It’s not responsive (mobile friendly) and the procedure of changing the website is difficult. We tend to avoid using pre-auth for that reason."
"The product is really good as-is out of the box. If there is one thing I would change is to have the license file not be coupled with the MAC address of the device. This is actually not really useful in a virtual environment where if you have a single VM with KEMP LoadMaster and you have not set up static MAC Address, if you, for example, recreate the VM and just load the disk file on a new VM it will get new MAC address and the NLB will not work as it will not see a proper license."
"In the next release, Kemp should include the ability for LoadMaster to create different DNS record types."
"We have experienced at least one problem with stability, although it was fixed with an upgrade."
"I would like to see the loading documentation improved."
"Recently our team was talking about the things you can customize in Alteon and the level of programming that doing so demands. I would like to see more information on how to customize the programming and troubleshoot."
"Load balancing needs improvement. It needs better integration. I heard f5 works as a DNS operator which is not available in this solution. It would be better if that was implemented."
"Scalability should be based on customer requirements."
"Their support can be better. The Radware management is very proactive. We can connect to anybody in Radware Management in India. We can even connect with the MD of Radware India. However, their lower level staff should be more proactive towards the customers."
"Support is very important because if we get good support, we'll be able to sell and supply more numbers."
"I would like the solution to display and help visualize the reference map more easily. I would also like to better understand where queries come from and know which users are consulting the application, along with which app."
"I would like to see future enhancements in security, specifically in threat protection."
Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 33 reviews. Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC and Citrix NetScaler, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and F5 Advanced WAF. See our Kemp LoadMaster vs. Radware Alteon 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.
