We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC 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."Simple to use and easy to integrate."
"The GSLB, the DR side, is the best part. Because we had our main side in one city, we created another, and we had a complete MPLS over the internet. We used the GSLB and data loss for our business applications."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading capacity."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"From a technical perspective, it is the most scalable device from Fortinet."
"Although FortiADC has multiple features that I like, the global DNS is the most helpful. It is primarily useful for customers with huge environments and at least two data centers. FortiADC can act as your DNS server. It can check which data center has the lowest latency, and route traffic to that one. It's an intelligent DNS."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"I am impressed with the product's load-balancing feature."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
"We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us, to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background."
"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."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"The product’s price could be reduced. Also, some of its features need to be more advanced."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
"I think it would be helpful if Fortinet put more video examples on their cookbook site."
"The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"The product's stability for VMs could be better."
"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."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"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."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our Fortinet FortiADC 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.