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."Content caching and content compression are good features."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"Simple to use and easy to integrate."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"I like the solution's load balance with DNS intelligence."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"From a technical perspective, it is the most scalable device from Fortinet."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading capacity."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"We have about 30,000 connections going through at any one time and it's fine, it doesn't seem to sweat. It doesn't get overloaded."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained."
"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."
"Issues with SSL and encrypted traffic."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"FortiADC is complex to configure so the interface should be improved."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"Fortinet FortiADC should include an advanced-level SD-WAN."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"The automatic refresh of the System Overview webpage: It sometimes has an extra webpage reload (after a change) before you see it is executed. This can be confusing."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
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 HAProxy, 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.