We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."The Local Traffic Manager (LTM) provides a simple low balance and SSL decryption, in addition to some TCP parameters, for incoming and outgoing traffic to redirect appropriate traffic patterns to appropriate servers."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"I have Big-IP change and control manager, which give me the roll back option. Therefore, I can view the last things which happened on the device."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"We like is how they integrate nicely with the Oracle PeopleSoft application."
"Stable and scalable network traffic management solution for applications. It has good performance."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"For now, it's stable."
"It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"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."
"It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"The initial setup can take a long time."
"Security and Reporting."
"Initial setup is tricky, if you do not understand the design of this product."
"I would like them to have more flexible models."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"The auto logout feature after three minutes is terrible. I wish they would make that longer, since it is not a feature that we can change."
"I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"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."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
"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."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."
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 Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.