We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder 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."A10 Networks Thunder ADC is an easy-to-use and flexible solution."
"The Deterministic CGNAT feature is valuable for us."
"The solution is flexible."
"The SLB and GSLB load balancing are the most valuable features. They meet our need to do server-side load balancing and global site load balancing so we can distribute traffic, not only intra-data center, but inter-data center."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features in A10 Networks Thunder ADC are the ease of configuration, user-friendliness, and simplicity to sell to customers."
"Feature-wise, A10 Networks Thunder ADC is better for troubleshooting...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The solution is user-friendly and the CLA troubleshooting is easier compared to other solutions."
"The technical support has been, in one word, perfect. Every time I call, I’m on the phone with a representative within five minutes who is highly skilled and willing to help, whether in the case of critical issues or simple advice."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"HAProxy potentially has a good return on investment"
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"Advanced traffic rules, including stick tables and ACLs, which allow me to shape traffic while it's load balanced."
"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."
"It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"We were able to use HAProxy for round robin with our databases, or for a centralized TCP connection in one host."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"The solution should add automation features in the next release."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"Currently, the solution's WAF features are fewer. They should consider increasing their WAF features."
"We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers."
"It scaled well for our numbers, up to 3 million subscribers for our most crowded region but I would like to see the same scalability numbers for the virtualized version as well."
"The user interface is what people complain about most of the time, particularly if they don't use it very often. Then they complain that it's a bit clunky."
"In my opinion, they need to improve their cloud support. There is support for cloud, but not all functions are there, such as high-availability."
"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)."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"We need to handle new connections by dropping, or queuing them while the HAProxy restarts, and because HAProxy does not handle split config files."
"We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It could be cheaper."
"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."
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Kemp LoadMaster and Loadbalancer.org, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy. See our A10 Networks Thunder 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.