We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and HAProxy 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."Our experience has been very good, in terms of performance, and securing our application infrastructure."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"We like the capability to combine the content switching with the intrusion prevention and adding the security roles, so we can expose certain sub-pieces outside without exposing everything."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"It is a fast and available solution."
"BIG-IP can do anything. It's like a Swiss Army knife."
"Valuable features include Link Controller and Server Load Balancer."
"The main reason that we suggest this product to our clients is the great integration with other security tools, such as IBM Guardium."
"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"Load balancing is valuable, and we are also using the WAF feature."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"It solves a problem for me where I can build files, not based on the health of the check, but rather the speed of the check."
"The ease of use of the configuration, and great documentation, are the most valuable features for us."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"The anti-DDOS PacketShield filtering solution (embedded in the physical appliances) as well as the BGP route injection are great features and heavily used."
"The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models."
"BIG-IP LTM's sandboxing integration could be improved."
"There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions."
"It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based."
"If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better."
"We need best-practice information. They have something called DevCentral and a blog. But we want something from F5 itself regarding how to tackle the false-positive configurations. If you go into detail with so many configurations it will find so many false positives from the moment it is enabled that it will quickly impact your applications, and it will not work."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"The auto logout feature after three minutes is terrible. I wish they would make that longer, since it is not a feature that we can change."
"We need to handle new connections by dropping, or queuing them while the HAProxy restarts, and because HAProxy does not handle split config files."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"I would like to see better search handling, and a user interface, with a complete functional graphical unit"
"The basic clustering is not usable in our very specific setup. The clustering is mainly a configuration replication and is great in a case of active-passive usage. In the case of an active-active (or with more than two nodes) where the configuration is not fully identical, it cannot be used as-is."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It could be cheaper."
"If nbproc = 2, you will have two processes of HAProxy running. However, the stats of HAProxy will not be aggregated, meaning you don't really know the collective status in a single point of view."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Offers good integration capabilities but needs to improve the monitoring part". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.
