We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."The stability is excellent."
"What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"It is the perfect solution when you have high workloads in your IT environment."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"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."
"Stability is number one."
"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"Scalable and inexpensive."
"What I like best about the product is its simplicity and speed. When you need to set up a load balancer quickly, HAProxy offers options like sticky sessions and round-robin. It's also fast to configure, including adding SSL for security. While it may have fewer options than other solutions like F5, HAProxy gets the job done for basic load-balancing tasks."
"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."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface."
"For integration with other AWS environments, we do some tie-ins with some autoscaling groups. This has been challenging for us. We have had issues, where when autoscaling groups scale up, there are some instances which are not showing up in the proper size. Then, those IPs would get registered with F5, but never get released. Therefore, we are ending up with a whole bunch of ghosted IPs."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery."
"Fixing bugs."
"Security enhancement should be more user friendly."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is sometimes a bit cumbersome to deal with some builds, although that's gotten significantly better over the years."
"There are three main areas to improve: 1) Make remote management more modern by adding API. 2) Propose a general HA solution for HAProxy (no I'm using keepalived for this). 3) Thread option should be a bit more stable."
"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)."
"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."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"Documentation could be improved."
"The GUI should be more responsive and show the detailed output of logs."
"We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs."
"The product does not have any new technologies."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and F5 Advanced WAF, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Istio. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.