We performed a comparison between HAProxy and Kong Mesh based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Isito, HAProxy, Kong and others in Service Mesh."The most valuable thing for me is TCP/IP Layer 4 stuff you can do with HAProxy. You can go down to the protocol level and make decisions on something."
"Scalable and inexpensive."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are session control which automatically disconnects users that forget to log off, and the ability to write rules to either allow or block certain file requests."
"The anti-DDOS PacketShield filtering solution (embedded in the physical appliances) as well as the BGP route injection are great features and heavily used."
"HAProxy's TCP load balancer is excellent and super stable."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"It is a scalable product."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It could be cheaper."
"Documentation could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to evaluate load-balancing algorithms other than round robin and SSL offloading. Also, it would be helpful if I could logically divide the HAProxy load-balancing into multiple entities so that I would install one HA Proxy LB application which could be used for different Web servers for different applications. I am not sure if these features are available."
"We would like to see dynamic ACL and port update support. Our infrastructure relies on randomly allocated ports and this feature would allow us to update without restarting the process."
"The initial setup is complicated. Although Kuma has its own CLI, CTL, and they say to use their CLI, if I have to build a generic solution, my personal preference would be to use Helm or another similar solution other than Kuma. If you have your own library CLI, it becomes hard for others to adopt it. For example, if I have to write some automation, infrastructure automation, I can't just use Kuma. I have to change my code to use Kuma's CTL, which is unfair because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit with my current automation structure. I have to do something extra, something additional, which I really don't like."
HAProxy is ranked 2nd in Service Mesh with 41 reviews while Kong Mesh is ranked 3rd in Service Mesh with 1 review. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Kong Mesh is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kong Mesh writes "Provides a unique advantage by offering a global view for all workloads and clusters within the mesh but lack of a robust community for open-source support". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy, whereas Kong Mesh is most compared with Istio, Envoy, HashiCorp Consul and Traefik Enterprise.
See our list of best Service Mesh vendors.
We monitor all Service Mesh 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.