We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), HAProxy, 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)."The most valuable feature is the proxy."
"The most valuable feature is the F5 LTM (Local Traffic Manager). This is the part of the product most organisations will be using most. It provides the core functionality to be able to load balance services and the means and the intelligence to be able to load balance based on advanced logic, e.g., TCL scripting."
"Bandwidth optimization and capacity awareness of the bandwidth are valuable features. Its video streaming capabilities are also very useful."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is the most valuable feature."
"We use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager to balance traffic."
"The iRule feature is very useful for inspecting HTTP. Sometimes, we use it for modifying the headers of the HTTP."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"Stable and scalable network traffic management solution for applications. It has good performance."
"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"Tech support is super-quick to respond, and always on target with answers specific to the current issue."
"It has allowed us to evenly distribute the load across a number of servers, and check their health and automatically react to errors."
"HAProxy potentially has a good return on investment"
"The ease of use of the configuration, and great documentation, are the most valuable features for us."
"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"Load balancing is valuable, and we are also using the WAF feature."
"The solution is user-friendly and efficient."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"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."
"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."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"I think the logging could be improved."
"The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager."
"There are some aspects of F5 BIG-IP that could be improved, the main one being virtual machine support. We have seen that even with the virtual editions, there are some things that we would like to do that are currently not possible with virtual machines."
"There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues not affecting production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. An ordeal for the manager."
"The GUI needs improvement."
"The solution's initial setup process was quite complex. I"
"A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function."
"HAProxy could improve by making the dashboards easier to use, and better reports and administration tickets."
"It needs proper HTTP/2 support."
"The only area that I can see needing improvement is the management interface, since it is pretty much all through the CLI or configuration. A GUI/web interface could be helpful for users who are not as experienced in the Linux shell. However, HAProxy does have another product that we evaluated called ALOHA, which has a web front-end, but we found it did not meet our needs."
"While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source."
"There is no standardized document available. So, any individual has to work from scratch to work it out. If some standard deployment details are available, it would be helpful for people while deploying it. There should be more documentation on the standard deployment."
"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."
"Documentation could be improved."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"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."
"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."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
