We performed a comparison between HAProxy and Loadbalancer.org 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 did not need technical support because the documentation is good."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"Software defined load balancing allows us to dynamically adjust and codify routing decisions. This speeds up development."
"Tech support is super-quick to respond, and always on target with answers specific to the current issue."
"Stability is number one."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"It is stable. Period. Will not fail unless you do something wrong."
"It has allowed us to evenly distribute the load across a number of servers, and check their health and automatically react to errors."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The performance is good."
"The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"They should introduce one feature that I know many people, including me, are waiting for: HAProxy should have provide hot-swipe for back-end servers. Also, they need a more detailed GUI for monitoring and configuration."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"The visibility could be improved."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"HAProxy is very weak in the logging and monitoring part and requires improvement."
"The solution can be improved by controlling TCP behavior better and mandating to clients what the expected outcome must be in order to avoid receiving contestant timeout logs."
"It needs proper HTTP/2 support."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"It would be great if there was a way to gain access to the graphing data, to create custom reports. If we had a way to use the graphing data, we could use it to present certain information to our client, such as the uptime status for their service."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 39 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Offers good integration capabilities but needs to improve the monitoring part". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Istio, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our HAProxy vs. Loadbalancer.org 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.