We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and Kemp LoadMaster 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."The solution is stable."
"The WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"Its visibility and login mechanism are the best parts. In addition to the great visibility it has a great dashboard and an easy to configure graphic user interface, a beautiful GUI."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"What's most valuable in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its deployment capability, the ability to deploy in a dispersed service, with the service engines that can disperse and have a single control plane that can control the load balancing services across any available platform, wherever needed. The analytics of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and flexibility of deployment are its most valuable features and the reasons why many people buy it."
"The most valuable feature of the solution for my organization is its UI since it allows us to see the clusters while providing a very specific and good overall understanding."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"The user interface is very easy to work with."
"Managing and maintaining multiple servers is done in a single place."
"The pricing of the solution is valuable."
"Simple to install with good documentation."
"The DNS Load Balancer makes it so that I don't have to worry about site failures."
"LoadMaster is easy to deploy and understand."
"When you configure the listening services, you can implement a lot of security features like the Edge Security Pack that intercepts the requests and processes those before they are sent to the real servers."
"It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"One struggle with Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its integration with other VMware products. Integration could be improved in the solution so that you have a more unified control plane with it and other data center security and networking products that VMware sells. There has been a bit of a lag on the roadmap of new features that have come out there recently, but better interoperability with the hyperscale environments such as the AWS, Azure, GCPs of the world, and simpler deployment and interoperability with those existing tools, are areas that are receiving attention and could use additional attention today. These are the areas for improvement in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"We experienced a brief period of instability."
"Perhaps Kemp could offer some training videos."
"The ability to see live traffic is not great and can be improved."
"I want to have the ability to pull a particular server. The DevOps portion was challenging for me, like if I needed to redirect from one IP to another URL. I needed to look that up, and the knowledge base is not well organized. When I look for information about Kemp on the Internet, I don't find many articles or something like that."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"We have experienced at least one problem with stability, although it was fixed with an upgrade."
"I definitely think that the WAF can be improved."
"Third, the password history restriction needs improvement. For example, the password policy will restrict the user to always use a unique password combination. The password should not be reused for a minimum of three generations of passwords."
More Avi Networks Software Load Balancer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is ranked 9th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer writes "Easy to set up and has good integration into the host environment but needs better third party integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, NGINX Plus and Fortinet FortiADC, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Imperva DDoS. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. Kemp LoadMaster 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.