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."We use it as a load balancer for our application servers."
"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 support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"The anti-DDOS PacketShield filtering solution (embedded in the physical appliances) as well as the BGP route injection are great features and heavily used."
"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 most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof is that it supports link load balance."
"Provides good performance and scalability."
"The web stats UI, which provides the status of the health and numbers, could greatly benefit from having a RESTful interface to control the load-balanced nodes. Although there is a hack around the UI (by issuing a POST request to HAProxy with parameters), a RESTful interface would greatly improve the automation process (through Chef and Ansible)."
"We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs."
"HAProxy could improve by making the dashboards easier to use, and better reports and administration tickets."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"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."
"Documentation could be improved."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"Radware LinkProof’s customer support could be improved."
"There are certain features I would like to see in the next release."
"The solution lacks HA configuration."
"Could have more customizations on the dashboard."
"Radware LinkProof's marketing efforts need improvement to raise awareness about its capabilities and compete effectively in the market."
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.
