We performed a comparison between HAProxy and Peplink SpeedFusion based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."Tech support is super-quick to respond, and always on target with answers specific to the current issue."
"The solution is effective in managing our traffic."
"The most valuable feature of HAProxy is that its open source."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services."
"What I like best about the product is its simplicity and speed. When you need to set up a load balancer quickly, HAProxy offers options like sticky sessions and round-robin. It's also fast to configure, including adding SSL for security. While it may have fewer options than other solutions like F5, HAProxy gets the job done for basic load-balancing tasks."
"Reliability. HAProxy is the most reliable product I have ever used."
"Advanced traffic rules, including stick tables and ACLs, which allow me to shape traffic while it's load balanced."
"The SpeedFusion feature is good. It allowed us to move away from IPsec between the sites. It is also a really easy product to deploy."
"In the Philippines, VPN usage may not be widely known, but we leverage VPN effectively within my organization. I've shared our in-house systems with other district offices, as I cover fifteen municipalities and cater to the entire province. This platform is a valuable tool for us, enabling collaborative work, and allowing us to update our services remotely."
"Our customers find it to be an interesting and tempting solution."
"The SpeedFusion feature is the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the virtual VPN concentrator."
"It is a very stable product."
"The valuable feature is that, after reading about its capabilities and using it for a while, Peplink SpeedFusion employs eight technologies within its SD-WAN profile, addressing issues like packet loss and latency. The solution is highly stable. I rate it a nine out of ten. The support team gives quick response and efficient local support."
"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."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"Documentation could be improved."
"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."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"There are three main areas to improve: 1) Make remote management more modern by adding API. 2) Propose a general HA solution for HAProxy (no I'm using keepalived for this). 3) Thread option should be a bit more stable."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It could be cheaper."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"They don't have next generation firewall, UTM, like the other competitors."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"Their hardware support isn't the greatest. We've had one unit go down, and it took a while for them to replace it. It was in the Caribbeans, so it might be a location-related issue."
"There is room for improvement in enhancing security features, such as incorporating intrusion detection blocking capabilities and integrating artificial intelligence to bolster security aspects on the device."
"The product needs to aggregate the bandwidth of different ISPs. It needs to improve scalability as well."
"Its pricing is the main issue. The pricing could be improved. I would like to see an outbound policy based on the application. It is a very good feature, and most of the customers are looking for that. They can also include stronger firewall features. This would help the customers in choosing this product as the only device for the SD network."
"I believe there could be some enhancements in the enterprise segment, offering greater options or something similar."
HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews while Peplink SpeedFusion is ranked 11th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 8 reviews. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Peplink SpeedFusion 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 Peplink SpeedFusion writes "Helps to connect remote systems and offers collaborative features ". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), whereas Peplink SpeedFusion is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cradlepoint NetCloud, Cisco SD-WAN, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and SonicWall SMA.
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.
