We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."Secure and scalable traffic management solution for applications. Good for bigger environments."
"It provides first-tier firewalling, for you application. And it provides server load-balancing, it provides optimization, and it provides a proxy feature, where your users cannot directly access your server. It acts as a fully proxy architecture. It has client-side and server-side connections, both, and they're separate."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"Initial setup is easy and pretty standard."
"We're able to do load balancing and global load balancing. When you marry those two products together, you can do a lot more. We're able to deliver our applications more securely and faster. It has improved our deliverability where we have more service across the shared data centers. We can intelligently reach all of those client connections across all of the servers and do it fairly quickly. It has helped improve our application delivery and performance."
"Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"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."
"I like that this is a Network Load Balancer that can be used practically with any application in the backend. They have how-to guides on how to set up Kemp NLB with Exchange, but you can use it as well for Sharepoint, RDS, or any other back end server."
"The base feature of Kemp LoadMaster load balancing ticks all the boxes but the most valuable features would be the security features Intrusion Prevention (IPS) and Web Application Firewall (WAF)."
"The DNS Load Balancer makes it so that I don't have to worry about site failures."
"The Global WAF has saved us more than one time from unwanted traffic."
"Mitigates content security policy issues."
"It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs."
"The pricing of the solution is valuable."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"Lacking in free training to help users understand the product more, so they would know how to correctly use it. Like other vendors and their products, becoming more proactive is an area for improvement."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."
"It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it."
"Not everything is intuitive."
"The solution's hardware quality needs improvement."
"I would like to see F-5 implement a regular routing like in other Linux-based devices. When we try and integrate in some complex networks, we have to use some additional routing scenarios from a Layer 3 perspective, then we have some problems. It would be great if this were fixed somehow."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"I want to have the ability to pull a particular server. The DevOps portion was challenging for me, like if I needed to redirect from one IP to another URL. I needed to look that up, and the knowledge base is not well organized. When I look for information about Kemp on the Internet, I don't find many articles or something like that."
"Certificate installations could be simplified and modernized, and allowed to be monitored for expirations/issues."
"The cost of the GEO upgrade is not cost-prohibitive but it's something that would be a nice add-in, out of the box."
"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."
"If you want logging for SMTP traffic, you have to enable ESP, which requires you to define allowed IP addresses. That’s irritating, to say the least."
"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."
"Some documentation is out of date versus the new version, and things have been moved."
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 Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. 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 Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.