We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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 solution is user-friendly and the CLA troubleshooting is easier compared to other solutions."
"It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
"For now, it's stable."
"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."
"The interface and integrated custom applications can be a bit difficult."
"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."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"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."
"For now, it's stable."
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.
Loadbalancer.org leads the market in delivering high-performance load balancers and load balancing solutions to customers around the world. Customers who depend on the high-availability of business critical applications can take advantage of unparalleled versatility, affordable costs and instant access to the industry’s most responsive 24/7 support – even during a free trial. Founded in 2002, Loadbalancer.org has offices in the USA, Canada, Germany and headquarters in the UK. With thousands of physical, virtual & cloud-based appliances deployed across six continents, Loadbalancer.org ensures the uptime of e-commerce websites & mission critical applications globally, whilst also improving performance, security, scalability and providing a rapid return on investment (ROI). Loadbalancer.org offers a no-nonsense approach and complete focus on load balancing.
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 5th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 14th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 2 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.4, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 7.6. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Stable internet management and access but the scalability needs improvement". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix ADC, Kemp LoadMaster, Radware Alteon and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with HAProxy, Citrix ADC, Kemp LoadMaster and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. Loadbalancer.org 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.