We performed a comparison between HAProxy and Radware LinkProof 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."It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is that it works for my use case of application load balancing. I'm using it for PeerSense, and it's easy enough for PeerSense."
"The anti-DDOS PacketShield filtering solution (embedded in the physical appliances) as well as the BGP route injection are great features and heavily used."
"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"Tech support is super-quick to respond, and always on target with answers specific to the current issue."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"I can simplify configurations of many internal services (e.g. Web server configs) by moving some elements (like SSL) to HAProxy. I can also disable additional applications, like Varnish, by moving traffic shaping configurations to HAProxy."
"HAProxy's TCP load balancer is excellent and super stable."
"Provides good performance and scalability."
"The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof is that it supports link load balance."
"The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof for traffic distribution is its DNS management capability."
"The performance and stability are the most valuable features."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"There are three main areas to improve: 1) Make remote management more modern by adding API. 2) Propose a general HA solution for HAProxy (no I'm using keepalived for this). 3) Thread option should be a bit more stable."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"The configuration should be more friendly, perhaps with a Web interface. For example, I work with the ClusterControl product for Severalnines, and we have a Web interface to deploy the HAProxy load-balancer."
"The solution can be improved by controlling TCP behavior better and mandating to clients what the expected outcome must be in order to avoid receiving contestant timeout logs."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"Improving the documentation with multiple examples and scenarios would be beneficial. Most users encounter similar situations, so having a variety of scenarios readily available on the tool's website would be helpful. For instance, if I were part of the HAProxy team, I'd create a webpage with different scenarios and provide files for each scenario. This way, users wouldn't have to start from scratch every time."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"Radware LinkProof's marketing efforts need improvement to raise awareness about its capabilities and compete effectively in the market."
"The solution lacks HA configuration."
"There are certain features I would like to see in the next release."
"Could have more customizations on the dashboard."
"Radware LinkProof’s customer support could be improved."
HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews while Radware LinkProof is ranked 13th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 5 reviews. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Radware LinkProof is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware LinkProof writes "Supports link load balance and has good stability". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy, whereas Radware LinkProof is most compared with Radware Alteon, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Fortinet FortiADC. See our HAProxy vs. Radware LinkProof 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.