We performed a comparison between Barracuda Load Balancer ADC and HAProxy 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."Barracuda's technical support is good - whenever we have an issue, they immediately connect and resolve it."
"The price is very good, and it's not very expensive."
"It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"The VRRP redundancy is also a mission-critical feature that works seamlessly. I can bring down a server live with minimal downtime because of this."
"The ease of use of the configuration, and great documentation, are the most valuable features for us."
"Software defined load balancing allows us to dynamically adjust and codify routing decisions. This speeds up development."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"It is stable. Period. Will not fail unless you do something wrong."
"HAProxy Enterprise Edition has been rock solid. We have essentially had no downtime caused by our load balancers in the last 10 months, because they’ve worked so well. Previously, our load balancers caused us multiple hours per year in downtime."
"Load Balancer ADC is competitively priced, but it's not feature-rich, and its technology is not that advanced."
"The quality of the solution's performance could be improved."
"The reconfigurability in terms of the tooling could be improved and maybe an editor plugin can be added."
"The GUI should be more responsive and show the detailed output of logs."
"They should introduce one feature that I know many people, including me, are waiting for: HAProxy should have provide hot-swipe for back-end servers. Also, they need a more detailed GUI for monitoring and configuration."
"We need to handle new connections by dropping, or queuing them while the HAProxy restarts, and because HAProxy does not handle split config files."
"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."
"Sometimes it's challenging to get through the log, and you need a log to understand what is going on. It isn't easy to map the logging with the documentation, and every time I read the log, I have to pull out the documentation to understand what I'm reading."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"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."
Barracuda Load Balancer ADC is ranked 14th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 3 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Barracuda Load Balancer ADC is rated 7.4, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Barracuda Load Balancer ADC writes "Cost-effective but lacking features and integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". Barracuda Load Balancer ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy. See our Barracuda Load Balancer ADC vs. HAProxy 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.
