We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"The ease of use is very good. It's very robust. It just sits and works."
"Compared to F5, which I used about six years ago, the A10 is much easier when routing. You don't have to use the wildcard bits to route it between the different segments. It's much less troublesome to configure."
"The SLB and GSLB load balancing are the most valuable features. They meet our need to do server-side load balancing and global site load balancing so we can distribute traffic, not only intra-data center, but inter-data center."
"The ADCs are pretty straightforward and easy to use. There is a GUI base where you can go in and see everything, but they also have a CLI base where you can use a command and get the information that you want, very fast."
"A lot of our SSL management is done on the front-end side, so there is one pane of glass for a lot of our security certificates. It gives us visibility. It also falls under when certificates are going to expire. Even for servers that are coming down, we can see how that affects the traffic flow by using the services map."
"It helps with the efficiency of application deployments and data security."
"It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is that it works for my use case of application load balancing. I'm using it for PeerSense, and it's easy enough for PeerSense."
"Load balancing is valuable, and we are also using the WAF feature."
"I would like them to provide learning tips and a community forum where users can share ideas. They need more detailed support articles on the A10 website."
"The user interface is what people complain about most of the time, particularly if they don't use it very often. Then they complain that it's a bit clunky."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"In my opinion, they need to improve their cloud support. There is support for cloud, but not all functions are there, such as high-availability."
"There is room for improvement in the upgrading process. Sometimes we have to contact A10 for verification of some stuff."
"We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"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 were budgetary constraints that keep us from investing in the single pane of glass traffic management feature. We saw a demo of this feature about a year to a year and a half ago."
"As for the initial investment in the hardware, F5 and A10 are quite similar now. For the current A10 solution, the initial cost was about $36,000. As for annual support, the F5 solution would be between $10,000 and $12,000, while the A10 is $2,200 a year for support."
"You get a lot more for your dollar with A10."
"We did try out the solution’s Harmony analytics and visibility controller for its one-year trial. Due to the cost, we chose not to keep it onsite."
"We just pay for support in addition to our licensing."
"Pricing is one of the features of the product that influence customers to use the product."
"The price is good they are very comparative."
"The price of the maintenance support is too expensive."
"HAProxy is free in the initial offer. However, pricing can be improved."
"It is free of cost."
A10 Networks' application networking, load balancing and DDoS protection solutions accelerate and secure data center applications and networks of thousands of the world's largest enterprises, service providers, and hyper scale web providers.
HAProxy is the most widely used software load balancer and application delivery controller in the world. The core HAProxy application delivery engine is an open source project chiefly maintained by HAProxy Technologies and assisted by a thriving open source community. HAProxy Community Edition is available for free at haproxy.org. HAProxy Enterprise Edition is packaged with additional enterprise class features, services and premium support from HAProxy Technologies.
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 9 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 2 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.6, while HAProxy is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "With iRule or aFleX scripting, you can influence the complete packet instead of just a few bytes or bits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Open-source, free, and has a lot of customizations, but needs more support and standard documentation for customizations". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix ADC, Kemp LoadMaster, Radware Alteon and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas HAProxy is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Kemp LoadMaster, NGINX Plus and Radware Alteon. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. HAProxy 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.