We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Barracuda Load Balancer ADC Alternatives and Competitors

Get our free report covering F5, Sangfor, HAProxy, and other competitors of Barracuda Load Balancer ADC. Updated: October 2021.
541,108 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Barracuda Load Balancer ADC alternatives and competitors

reviewer1486944
Systems Administrator II at Lincoln Land Community College
MSP
Top 20
Easy to set up, reliable, provides seamless failover, and the powerful load balancing capabilities save us money

Pros and Cons

  • "Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid."
  • "It would be much easier to have the management interface directly integrate with the Kemp Support library, allowing you to choose the desired template from the online catalog to then directly download to the LoadMaster."

What is our primary use case?

We use an on-premises Skype for Business Server VoIP service that utilizes the Kemp LoadMaster LM-2400 for service resiliency. This allows our three front-end servers to seamlessly support our service. We never miss a call and our chat service is always ready as a result.

Kemp has a pre-made virtual service profile that perfectly fits our use case so the initial setup is quite easy. We also have expanded the use of the LoadMaster to accommodate a number of ancillary services that also require resilience.

How has it helped my organization?

The Kemp LoadMaster is easy to set up, well documented, and very easy to maintain. It has done a flawless job supporting our Microsoft Skype for Business Server VoIP services, as well as expanding to cover a number of other services that require load balancing.

The LoadMaster has helped to keep our Voice over IP services in-house, which has produced tremendous savings versus hosting our services in the cloud. This has allowed us to devote our resources to other projects, increasing our overall effectiveness.

What is most valuable?

The load balancing features of the LoadMaster are the best we have used.

Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid. Kemp maintains a library of templates pre-configured for a number of services, including Microsoft Skype for Business Server. This makes configuring the virtual services very easy. It also makes it very easy to add additional virtual services as you find new use cases. The convenience of being able to download new or updated templates from Kemp's support site cannot be understated.

What needs improvement?

If I had to pick an area for improvement, I think it would be direct integration with the template library. At present, you need to download the templates from the Kemp support portal and then upload them onto the LoadMaster. It would be much easier to have the management interface directly integrate with the Kemp Support library, allowing you to choose the desired template from the online catalog to then directly download to the LoadMaster.

For how long have I used the solution?

We first implemented our Kemp LoadMaster eight years ago when we launched a new VoIP project that required load balancing for enhanced reliability.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is rock solid. We have only experienced one issue in eight years. Kemp support was all over it and got us back online in no time.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

For our organization, the LM-2400 is perfectly sized. I'm sure it has an upper limit but we have not gotten anywhere near it yet.

How are customer service and technical support?

Kemp tech support has been absolutely fantastic. 

We have had one hardware issue, which over a span of eight years isn't bad at all, and one setup question. Both of these issues were handled quickly and to our satisfaction.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we had been using a Barracuda load balancer. It was nice but the management was not as easy to use and it was not quite as reliable as we would have liked.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. The virtual service templates provided by Kemp make setup a snap!

What about the implementation team?

We used a vendor team but our assigned technician was not familiar with networking or load balancing. I ended up taking over the setup and it couldn't have been easier.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The Kemp LoadMaster is a tremendous value. It works well and is easy to set up and to maintain.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Barracuda and F5 were evaluated as well. The performance and value were found to be much better with the Kemp LoadMaster.

What other advice do I have?

The Kemp LoadMaster just works. It is extraordinarily difficult to suggest any changes that might improve its feature set. Go with Kemp, you won't regret it!

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
MC
Chief Information Officer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Good performance, easy to configure and simple to set up

Pros and Cons

  • "We enjoy its overall ease of use."
  • "The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."

What is our primary use case?

The product can be used for many applications including load balancing and GLB's overload balancing. It depends on the module. If there's a public APM you can use it for WAF and many other use-cases. 

What is most valuable?

The performance of the product is great. 

We enjoy its overall ease of use.

It's relatively easy to configure. There's a certain level of fine-grain configurations that you can perform.

The solution is very stable.

We've found the product to be quite scalable.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

What needs improvement?

The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive.

It would be ideal if they offered integration with NGINX. They purchased NGINX as well. Therefore, if it's got integration with NGINX, then you kind of have one single pane of a console for all the F5/NGINX portions of your work. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for six years. It's been a while.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very good. The performance is reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. We don't find there are a lot of bugs or glitches. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is great. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We have about 2,500 users on it currently.

We do plan to increase usage in the near future.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've used technical support in the past and have been satisfied with the level of attention we receive. They are helpful and responsive. 

How was the initial setup?

The installation process is not overly complex or difficult. It's very straightforward and pretty simple. 

The deployment is fast as well. It takes maybe an hour to an hour and a half to set everything up. 

We have two people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance. They are admins.

What about the implementation team?

I handled the installation myself. I did not need the assistance of any integrator or consultant. It was all handled in-house. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The solution could work at lowering its prices a bit.

The licensing needs to be a bit more flexible.

We pay our licensing fees on a yearly basis. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did evaluate other solutions before choosing this product. However, it was a long time ago. I can't recall the products we looked at. One might have been Barracuda.

What other advice do I have?

We're a customer and a partner of F5.

The product is an on-premise virtual edition solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been mostly quite happy with it so far.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. Our experience has been a positive one. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
NT
Technical Manager/Division of Computers Systems, Networks, and Maintenance at a non-tech company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 10
Good SSL offloading and performance, plus it catches security breaches in our academic environment

Pros and Cons

  • "TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
  • "FortiADC is complex to configure so the interface should be improved."

What is our primary use case?

We are an academic institution and our primary use of FortiADC is for student registrations. In the month that I have been using this solution, it seems to be working fine. It is a trial version and I am using it as a virtual appliance, rather than a physical one.

How has it helped my organization?

Our students can use this solution to view communication that has been published, including for courses. It can be viewed using computers connected to the internet, phones, and other mobile devices.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading. TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features.

This solution improves security for servers by offering data loss protection.

What needs improvement?

FortiADC is complex to configure so the interface should be improved. The commands that you need to use are complex.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been evaluating FortiADC for about one month.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The platform is very easy to scale because it's virtual. You just buy licenses and increase the hardware when needed. We have as many as 3,000 users, although not all of the time. We probably have about 1,000 concurrent users. All of them are students.

How are customer service and technical support?

The FortiADC technical support has responded to my questions and resolved issues.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have used Brocade, which is now obsolete and the company did not release a similar product. Brocade was a good product with good performance, but I need new firmware and I can't upgrade it. It is restricted to TLS version 1.0 only, whereas I need to use TLS 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3. TLS 1.0 has weak encryption.

The initial setup of Brocade was complex and the company could not make the configuration easier. You needed experience because it is mostly operated through the command-line interface. It is similar to a Cisco product in this way. I was able to complete the setup on my own by reading the documentation that was available on the internet.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I am currently evaluating FortiADC and Kemp.

The Kemp solution lacks information and the graphical interface is not very good. Also, Kemp has given us no support.

I was interested in evaluating a solution by Barracuda but I could not get a trial version.

What other advice do I have?

The suitability of this solution depends on the users and the company. Load balancing is very important for big companies. They need to use it for TSL and SSL offloading. 

I am not interested in additional features. I only want FortiADC to work fine as it catches security breaches and increases performance.

Overall, FortiADC is a good product, although it is complex to configure.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
MA
Head of Network Department at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Easy to set up, easy to configure, and quite stable

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution itself is perfect. It's easy to configure and we haven't had any initial issues with the hardware or power supply."
  • "It's hard to scale down the solution. You need to buy another product in order to do this."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution to balance the traffic that we receive from other communication companies, which we are using for financial projects.

What is most valuable?

The solution itself is perfect. It's easy to configure and we haven't had any initial issues with the hardware or power supply.

What needs improvement?

The price is very high. They should work to make it more competitive. It would help if the licensing model was better.

The support has not been helpful in terms of responding to and finding solutions to issues.

It's hard to scale down the solution. You need to buy another product in order to do this.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for three years so far.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In terms of scalability, sometimes we want to scale back some features, as opposed to scaling up. We've been told we need to buy another product in order to make that happen. It would be better if they would allow for both scaling down as well as up.

We have about 1,000 users on the solution currently. They are all our bank employees and mostly from the IT department. They include IT managers and admins.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have reached out to technical support once in the past. They were not able to resolve the problem. We're not satisfied with their level of support.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very easy. Installation is very straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

The first time we used the solution we installed it with the help of F5 partners from which we bought the product. The second time we installed the solution we were able to handle the installation ourselves.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing costs are very high for the solution. It's quite expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are currently looking to revisit Barracuda among other solutions. We're evaluating them right now.

What other advice do I have?

I'm familiar with the F5 1600. We have one for the application delivery controller and the other one as a net traffic manager.

We are on the F5 network with other communication parties.

I'd recommend he solution for those organizations that have the budget for it.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but the company was not able to support us when we initially had problems with the solution.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering F5, Sangfor, HAProxy, and other competitors of Barracuda Load Balancer ADC. Updated: October 2021.
541,108 professionals have used our research since 2012.