We performed a comparison between HAProxy 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."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."
"The anti-DDOS PacketShield filtering solution (embedded in the physical appliances) as well as the BGP route injection are great features and heavily used."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"We use it as a load balancer for our application servers."
"The VRRP redundancy is also a mission-critical feature that works seamlessly. I can bring down a server live with minimal downtime because of this."
"It is scalable."
"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."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"The performance is good."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"They should introduce one feature that I know many people, including me, are waiting for: HAProxy should have provide hot-swipe for back-end servers. Also, they need a more detailed GUI for monitoring and configuration."
"The product does not have any new technologies."
"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 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)."
"The basic clustering is not usable in our very specific setup. The clustering is mainly a configuration replication and is great in a case of active-passive usage. In the case of an active-active (or with more than two nodes) where the configuration is not fully identical, it cannot be used as-is."
"The visibility could be improved."
"Documentation could be improved."
"An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."
"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."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Fortinet FortiADC, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our HAProxy 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.