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."Stable and scalable network traffic management solution for applications. It has good performance."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"It also has an AVR feature: application, visibility, and recording. It's good for customers looking for what is actually happening in their network and where the latency is."
"I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"I was able to simply and quickly set up the WAF rules and security, and also set up easily complex policies and rules which gave me some great features to redirect."
"F5 BIG-IP is used with good applications and functions as an application firewall with additional features. We will not use any feature or any service unless there is a business case and there is a need for implementation."
"it has TCP LAN and WAN optimization features. It has has caching."
"We needed a Microsoft Threat Management Gateway server replacement solution for a customer and were impressed with the simplified deployment of the Kemp LoadMasters."
"It is an easy-to-use, user-friendly interface, and you can set up a new VIP in a couple of minutes."
"It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs."
"Edge Security Pack is valuable because of the way it separates between critical infrastructure and the public internet."
"Load-balancing is a great feature that is very easy to configure and it is always working fine."
"From my personal experience, many firewalls provide Load Balancing functionalities, but Kemp Loadmaster has a lot of features and functionalities like what you can configure. So there are a lot of features but we use only five percent of it."
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"The pricing of the solution is valuable."
"I would like them to have more flexible models."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"I would like there to be more device security. I would like the tool to support SSL links, along with SSL and TLS."
"One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side."
"The UI could be improved."
"There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions."
"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."
"Implementing whitepapers with a lot more applications could easily be added."
"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."
"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."
"It has all types of logs and they are very detailed, but it's a little bit hard to search for a single event."
"SNMP and/or RESTCONF management, in order to collect many counters, for plotting in a central application need to be improved."
"They need to improve the UI environment. Currently, it's hard to navigate and use product."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.
