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."We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"It is a fast and available solution."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"I have found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) to be stable."
"The setup is pretty easy."
"It is scalable."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are session control which automatically disconnects users that forget to log off, and the ability to write rules to either allow or block certain file requests."
"We were able to use HAProxy for round robin with our databases, or for a centralized TCP connection in one host."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"The solution is user-friendly and efficient."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"Based on my experience using F5 and by only taking into consideration the last seven years, I have found that the reporting mechanism is bad."
"I would like there to be more device security. I would like the tool to support SSL links, along with SSL and TLS."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."
"A more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface."
"An area for improvement in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is that it's a high-priced product."
"F5 has another solution to load balance servers on the cloud, which they got after the purchase of NGINX. It is deployed as Kubernetes or something like that, but the problem now is that they have two solutions for two situations. They should make F5 deployable on the cloud."
"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."
"The only area that I can see needing improvement is the management interface, since it is pretty much all through the CLI or configuration. A GUI/web interface could be helpful for users who are not as experienced in the Linux shell. However, HAProxy does have another product that we evaluated called ALOHA, which has a web front-end, but we found it did not meet our needs."
"The reconfigurability in terms of the tooling could be improved and maybe an editor plugin can be added."
"We need to handle new connections by dropping, or queuing them while the HAProxy restarts, and because HAProxy does not handle split config files."
"While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"HAProxy could improve by making the dashboards easier to use, and better reports and administration tickets."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
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.
