We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer 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."The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution for my organization is its UI since it allows us to see the clusters while providing a very specific and good overall understanding."
"The WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"What's most valuable in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its deployment capability, the ability to deploy in a dispersed service, with the service engines that can disperse and have a single control plane that can control the load balancing services across any available platform, wherever needed. The analytics of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and flexibility of deployment are its most valuable features and the reasons why many people buy it."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"Its visibility and login mechanism are the best parts. In addition to the great visibility it has a great dashboard and an easy to configure graphic user interface, a beautiful GUI."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"When you configure the listening services, you can implement a lot of security features like the Edge Security Pack that intercepts the requests and processes those before they are sent to the real servers."
"The most valuable feature is the load balancing and allowing for high availability of our web services."
"The user interface is very easy to work with."
"The configuration is really easy and the web portal is self-explanatory."
"I like the way this solution handles multiple SSLs in different domains while still load balancing."
"We really like the performance of this solution."
"With Kemp 360 Central, our customers get a nice overview of their Kemp products and an easy way to upgrade firmware on all devices from a single interface."
"We needed a Microsoft Threat Management Gateway server replacement solution for a customer and were impressed with the simplified deployment of the Kemp LoadMasters."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"One struggle with Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its integration with other VMware products. Integration could be improved in the solution so that you have a more unified control plane with it and other data center security and networking products that VMware sells. There has been a bit of a lag on the roadmap of new features that have come out there recently, but better interoperability with the hyperscale environments such as the AWS, Azure, GCPs of the world, and simpler deployment and interoperability with those existing tools, are areas that are receiving attention and could use additional attention today. These are the areas for improvement in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it."
"Several elements of the GUI need work. For example, if you have many content switches, it’s difficult to find the ones you need. And where is the search feature?"
"The only thing I have struggled with is setting up automatic backups."
"We experienced a brief period of instability."
"Some documentation is out of date versus the new version, and things have been moved."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"They were still in the process of development, and for example, we set it up in a cluster. So it was one logistical unit built out of two physical devices. And the expected behavior, which I know from other devices, will be formed into a logic cluster. It's that you configure one unit. Then you bring the second unit into this cluster with the already configured primary unit. So the secondary box pulls all the configured ones from its neighbor, does everything automatically, and then synchronizes with this primary neighbor. And then it works, like, one logical unit. And this didn't work with the Kemp's initially, where they caused a lot of issues when building up a cluster, so there were some specials on how to set this up. When we built or set them up for the first time and the months afterward with no new software releases, there were a couple of problems, but in the end, they worked fine. So, they developed a lot and learned from what they've responded to, what we responded to them, and what needs fixing."
"They need to improve the UI environment. Currently, it's hard to navigate and use product."
"When we go serverless, we may again have to revisit this because the configuration needs to be changed. With this change, we can run into a lot of other configurations that we haven't got into, which involve additional expenses. It would be challenging to convince management to buy at that price point. It would be a balancing act of justifying that expense and the value, that is, how it is going to save a bit of time and make our platform secure. It can have better configuration ability. A lot of iterations happen when we have multiple servers pointing to the same domain. If we do not orchestrate carefully, it gets into a loop, which takes away the precious time of the user who is trying to subscribe to a service. It takes a little longer time to realize services as well as web pages."
More Avi Networks Software Load Balancer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is ranked 9th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer writes "Easy to set up and has good integration into the host environment but needs better third party integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, NGINX Plus and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC and Barracuda Load Balancer ADC. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer 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.