We performed a comparison between HAProxy 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."It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"Software defined load balancing allows us to dynamically adjust and codify routing decisions. This speeds up development."
"We use it as a load balancer for our application servers."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"We did not need technical support because the documentation is good."
"It is a crucial tool in ensuring smooth service provision without any interruptions."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"The performance is good."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are the ease of managing the logs on the WAFs, the ease to identify break-in attempts into the network, the front-end firewall, and a more specific firewall."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source."
"The only area that I can see needing improvement is the management interface, since it is pretty much all through the CLI or configuration. A GUI/web interface could be helpful for users who are not as experienced in the Linux shell. However, HAProxy does have another product that we evaluated called ALOHA, which has a web front-end, but we found it did not meet our needs."
"There is no standardized document available. So, any individual has to work from scratch to work it out. If some standard deployment details are available, it would be helpful for people while deploying it. There should be more documentation on the standard deployment."
"We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs."
"The product does not have any new technologies."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It could be cheaper."
"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."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"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."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Fortinet FortiADC, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our HAProxy 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.