We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC and Kemp LoadMaster 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."A10 Networks Thunder ADC is an easy-to-use and flexible solution."
"It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"The solution is stable."
"Feature-wise, A10 Networks Thunder ADC is better for troubleshooting...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The Deterministic CGNAT feature is valuable for us."
"The solution is flexible."
"The DNS application firewall and load balancing are very valuable."
"Simple to install with good documentation."
"Using Kemp as a front-facing service appliance, it allows me to have the flexibility of swapping out real servers behind the scenes without any intervention from my network team."
"Managing and maintaining multiple servers is done in a single place."
"Persistence is very valuable. This holds the connection information of the source and that connection is important to RDP and our APO calls. The connection has to be persisted to the original source to operate properly. We also use the subsections for sub-services to create services inside our services for our API resources, this is most awesome. We would not be able to do this without Kemp and offer this type of sub-service to route based on an API instance. It routes the traffic properly based on the sub-service type."
"We are most impressed with the ease of use and great support."
"From my personal experience, many firewalls provide Load Balancing functionalities, but Kemp Loadmaster has a lot of features and functionalities like what you can configure. So there are a lot of features but we use only five percent of it."
"The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency."
"When the templates are used, there is not much left to configure and they just work!"
"The solution should add automation features in the next release."
"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 solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good."
"There are competitors that have more features."
"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."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"The tool's load-balancing feature should improve."
"The setup depends on certain situations. In certain scenarios, it may be more complex than others. For example, while the initial configuration may be easy, the environment itself may be complex and that may limit the ease of deployment. It is easy for those who understand their environment."
"UI is very basic and unattractive."
"Third, the password history restriction needs improvement. For example, the password policy will restrict the user to always use a unique password combination. The password should not be reused for a minimum of three generations of passwords."
"The auth website of ESP is really lacking. It’s not responsive (mobile friendly) and the procedure of changing the website is difficult. We tend to avoid using pre-auth for that reason."
"In my opinion, the layer seven loads balancing that we're mainly using for web servers, doesn't seem to pick up when there are issues at the application level."
"Certificate installations could be simplified and modernized, and allowed to be monitored for expirations/issues."
"It would be very helpful to get all the http/https session logs by default in the log monitor without activating debugging mode like an apache web sever natively does"
"So far, the only hitch we have run into is that would have been nice to have an easier method to add allow/whitelist entries into the Access Control lists for virtual services."
"In the next release, they can introduce 360 views in the same dashboard to make it easier for users to view. The graphical information should be displayed on the dashboard."
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 12th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 6 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 7 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "Known for its load balancing capabilities, the WAF features need to be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "A Cheap and Stable Load Balancing solution with various Features, Functionalities and a Good Support Team". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Radware Alteon and NGINX Plus, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. Kemp LoadMaster 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.