We performed a comparison between Barracuda Load Balancer ADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), and Loadbalancer.org based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."Barracuda's technical support is good - whenever we have an issue, they immediately connect and resolve it."
"The price is very good, and it's not very expensive."
"It provides first-tier firewalling, for you application. And it provides server load-balancing, it provides optimization, and it provides a proxy feature, where your users cannot directly access your server. It acts as a fully proxy architecture. It has client-side and server-side connections, both, and they're separate."
"We enjoy its overall ease of use."
"ASM for WAF."
"BIG-IP LTM is completely stable, and its performance is good."
"F5 Big-IP Local Traffic Manager has better modular features especially LTM, which according to the clients, is very beneficial. Most of the users opt for a combination of big IP LTM and WAF which helps them to leverage application load balancing and enhance application security many-fold."
"Tech support has been very quick to respond to all of the needs that we've had. If you want ad-hoc support. They also provide professional services that you can purchase as well."
"If I were to choose one key feature in particular, perhaps it would be the iRule feature. It’s a really versatile tool."
"It is very intuitive, easy to deploy, and manage."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"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 support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"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."
"The quality of the solution's performance could be improved."
"Load Balancer ADC is competitively priced, but it's not feature-rich, and its technology is not that advanced."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"Logging is a bit of a problem. Logging and monitoring are only in plain text. You have to search and you have to know what you are searching for to find anything. So of course, monitoring and getting alerts for abnormal situations is hard. There are no tools for monitoring and alerts"
"The web interface could be better."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"Right now, there are a lot of products within F5's portfolio. They acquired a couple of companies like NGINX and Volterra. Some features and technologies overlapped when this acquisition occurred. They need to refine it and come up with a single, proper solution. F5 should focus more on zero trust network access (ZTNA).They should be more focused on that framework because the industry is moving towards that. Everyone is talking about SASE and zero trust."
"It would possibly help to get more training, even better in local languages."
"Reporting could be improved and configuration made easier."
"Certificate management needs improvement. I would like automated deployment of new certificates without manual intervention to be in the next release of this product."
"I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version."
"If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."
"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."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"It would be great if there was a way to gain access to the graphing data, to create custom reports. If we had a way to use the graphing data, we could use it to present certain information to our client, such as the uptime status for their service."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
