We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."The solution is robust and reliable."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium."
"It is a scalable solution."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"The Local Traffic Manager (LTM) provides a simple low balance and SSL decryption, in addition to some TCP parameters, for incoming and outgoing traffic to redirect appropriate traffic patterns to appropriate servers."
"The configuration and integration into the AWS environment was pretty easy."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The performance is good."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"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."
"BIG-IP LTM's sandboxing integration could be improved."
"The SharePoint SSO part has some room for improvement."
"Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive."
"They could improve the product's ease of use. There is some confusion how to operate it."
"F5 has another solution to load balance servers on the cloud, which they got after the purchase of NGINX. It is deployed as Kubernetes or something like that, but the problem now is that they have two solutions for two situations. They should make F5 deployable on the cloud."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"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."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.