We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiADC 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 GSLB, the DR side, is the best part. Because we had our main side in one city, we created another, and we had a complete MPLS over the internet. We used the GSLB and data loss for our business applications."
"The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading capacity."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it."
"It's a good product because it supports all the features that ADC solutions in the market can support, like F5 solutions, for example, such as the LTM of F5."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"Edge Security Pack is valuable because of the way it separates between critical infrastructure and the public internet."
"The DNS Load Balancer makes it so that I don't have to worry about site failures."
"The feature I find most valuable is load balancing with different algorithms."
"The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency."
"Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid."
"LoadMaster is easy to deploy and understand."
"Great web balancing and remote access balancing."
"The most valuable feature that I found is the load balancing feature, it is the core function of the product."
"Setup could be easier. The company's homework is to redesign those menus to configure with the smallest number of steps."
"Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say. The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed."
"Technical support and documentation could both be improved."
"I had a terrible experience with Fortinet support. I only used support once when I bought the solution. I got no response for two days. However, I believe that it's no longer the case. Fortinet solutions have problems when they're launched. For example, we had issues with Fortinet's authenticator when it came out. We also had trouble with FortiNAC in the beginning."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"Issues with SSL and encrypted traffic."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"In my opinion, the layer seven loads balancing that we're mainly using for web servers, doesn't seem to pick up when there are issues at the application level."
"Hardware version needs a dual power solution."
"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."
"Over the last several major versions, the GUI has remained virtually unchanged and still seems lacking."
"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?"
"I want Kemp LoadMaster to provide users with better reporting capabilities in relation to TCP packets. In general, the connections that are present in the system require improvement."
"We experienced a brief period of instability."
"It lacks an officially supported, well-written SCOM Management Pack."
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 19 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "High-level load balancing and routing protocols but scalability is limited to 200 gigabits". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Fortinet FortiADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiWeb, Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Citrix NetScaler, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Fortinet FortiADC 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.
