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."Content caching and content compression are good features."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"I am impressed with the product's load-balancing feature."
"Simple to use and easy to integrate."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"Because ADC is the intermediary between the servers and the end-user application, it gives thorough information about the traffic, what the problem is."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"The Global WAF has saved us more than one time from unwanted traffic."
"The old process of manually having to redirect Outlook Web Access traffic and Email traffic to a second server is a thing of the past."
"We are most impressed with the ease of use and great support."
"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."
"Exchange load balancing and reverse proxy for Skype for Business are key features."
"I like the way this solution handles multiple SSLs in different domains while still load balancing."
"Great web balancing and remote access balancing."
"One of the most valuable features I like is the ability to block specific cipher suites like RC4, and older protocols like SSL 3.0."
"Issues with SSL and encrypted traffic."
"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."
"The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives."
"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 solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"The product’s price could be reduced. Also, some of its features need to be more advanced."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"Setup could be easier. The company's homework is to redesign those menus to configure with the smallest number of steps."
"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."
"We experienced a brief period of instability."
"The ability to see live traffic is not great and can be improved."
"The only thing that I miss is that the TMG server was giving me live information about who is connected and what is the request about."
"The configuration of the basic services is pretty straight forward but for more complex solutions, there needs to be better documentation or knowledge base articles."
"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."
"In the next release, they can introduce 360 views in the same dashboard to make it easier for users to view. The graphical information should be displayed on the dashboard."
"To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, that there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools."
Fortinet FortiADC is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 10 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 7 reviews. Fortinet FortiADC is rated 7.8, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiADC writes "Feature-rich, robust, and the technical support is responsive ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "A Cheap and Stable Load Balancing solution with various Features, Functionalities and a Good Support Team". 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.