We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."I have Big-IP change and control manager, which give me the roll back option. Therefore, I can view the last things which happened on the device."
"The most valuable features are DNS, APM, and ASM. Additionally, it is easy to use and you have a lot of flexibility to use the solution within a network."
"It has made it a single entry point for all users, verging across all the VPCs. It is more of an SSO solution versus multitier user loggin."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system."
"We are using Application Security Manager (ASM) as a web application firewall, where there is a security signature to avoid a web level breach."
"It helps us recognize sessions from certain IPs that are authorized to manage the application. This is a function we haven't found anywhere else."
"It has greatly fortified the performance and uptime of our front-door email ingress, simplified and segmented mail routing, and reduced admin overhead for mail issue resolution and troubleshooting."
"The Global WAF has saved us more than one time from unwanted traffic."
"The most valuable feature that I found is the load balancing feature, it is the core function of the product."
"The base feature of Kemp LoadMaster load balancing ticks all the boxes but the most valuable features would be the security features Intrusion Prevention (IPS) and Web Application Firewall (WAF)."
"Persistence is very valuable. This holds the connection information of the source and that connection is important to RDP and our APO calls. The connection has to be persisted to the original source to operate properly. We also use the subsections for sub-services to create services inside our services for our API resources, this is most awesome. We would not be able to do this without Kemp and offer this type of sub-service to route based on an API instance. It routes the traffic properly based on the sub-service type."
"The user interface is very easy to work with."
"LoadMaster is easy to deploy and understand."
"The most valuable feature is the load balancing and allowing for high availability of our web services."
"If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."
"A more intuitive interface would be helpful."
"If one virtual portion is unavailable, it can cause issues."
"It would be good to have better traffic and better data. It would be nice to have more granularity to see packets in terms of the header details, the analytics, etc. It would be nice if that was also part of it and to have analytics added to the traffic."
"There is a challenge in Pakistan. This is when there is a hardware failure. Sometimes, it takes more time to get a replacement because it is sent out from the U.S. or some other regional outpost. Thus, it takes two to three days to receive a replacement."
"It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, that there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools."
"I want Kemp LoadMaster to provide users with better reporting capabilities in relation to TCP packets. In general, the connections that are present in the system require improvement."
"If you want logging for SMTP traffic, you have to enable ESP, which requires you to define allowed IP addresses. That’s irritating, to say the least."
"Certificate installations could be simplified and modernized, and allowed to be monitored for expirations/issues."
"So far, the only hitch we have run into is that would have been nice to have an easier method to add allow/whitelist entries into the Access Control lists for virtual services."
"In the next release, Kemp should include the ability for LoadMaster to create different DNS record types."
"We experienced a brief period of instability."
"Although Kemp is very user-friendly, it lacks a more custom configuration."
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 Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. 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 Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.