Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs LoadBalancer Enterprise comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of A10 Networks Thunder ADC is 4.9%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is 15.7%, up from 15.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of LoadBalancer Enterprise is 3.9%, up from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

RonaldoDE Melo - PeerSpot reviewer
Protects connection and servers from direct access with control access feature
The initial setup is very simple. The issue is that it achieves high output across all its features, specifically the output ports. This affects the customer's solution because sometimes, the customer is even aware of the user's activity on certain servers. If you have all the necessary information, we can quickly deploy the solution within two to three days. The size of the Thunder ADC depends on its configuration. For example, the cache converter typically includes more than two rack units, often requiring at least three rack units for adequate space. I rate it a ten out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.
Bonieber  Orofeo - PeerSpot reviewer
Identifying compromised traffic and securing data has been a significant advantage
One of the most beneficial features of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is its ability to identify compromised traffic and its capabilities in authentication. Additionally, the security aspect of it provides a significant advantage as it helps us secure our data, which is a major investment and benefit for us. Before using this system, we had difficulties in storing our data and managing the traffic that comes in and out.
Roger Seelaender - PeerSpot reviewer
Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised
The solution can be improved with the development of a SIP engine because it is difficult to manage SBCs. All SBCs are really tough to write rules for. If we could put this in front of an SBC to have the right rules to possibly block the traffic, that would be very helpful. The solution can also improve the relationship between Loadbalancer.org and Metaswitch, or now, Microsoft because Metaswitch was purchased by Microsoft. They both position themselves as certified but don't always talk to each other. I wish there would be closer integration between the solution and the vendors when either release new upgrades to their product line. Often we find issues on either end post upgrades.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) is simple to use."
"The ease of use is very good. It's very robust. It just sits and works."
"We can control access based on the specific application. If other devices are attempting to directly access the servers, you can block them. Additionally, you can balance the load among servers to optimize performance. For example, utilizing caching can make the application run faster."
"The solution is flexible."
"The ADCs are pretty straightforward and easy to use. There is a GUI base where you can go in and see everything, but they also have a CLI base where you can use a command and get the information that you want, very fast."
"The solution is stable."
"We do have the option of creating virtual chassis, so that gives it a bit more security. If we find an application which is not going to play well in the main pool, we can easily create a virtual chassis and have that application in that virtual chassis. With the virtual chassis we can also create system partitions and have a test system for test applications, and have the others elsewhere."
"Being a public entity and having a public website which is highly visible with a lot of traffic, we are a target for DDoS. Within the last year, we have had a couple of DDoS attacks which could have affected our web traffic and taken down certain parts of our website. This did not happen because the A10 was able to mitigate the attacks using rate limiting that can be configured for DDoS mitigation on the box."
"I've worked a little bit with iRules and it is amazing."
"The load balancing function, the monitors that you can create, and iRules programmability are most valuable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"BIG-IP LTM's most valuable feature is that it allows you to seamlessly add more servers without impacting your application's configuration."
"It has made it a single entry point for all users, verging across all the VPCs. It is more of an SSO solution versus multitier user loggin."
"Routing and load balancing are its most valuable features."
"The F5 GTM/BIGIP DNS (Global Traffic Manager) is a valuable feature. This feature allows for DNS load balancing, which means that high availability and load sharing can be done across services locally, as well as across datacenters with advanced capabilities​."
"It provides first-tier firewalling, for you application. And it provides server load-balancing, it provides optimization, and it provides a proxy feature, where your users cannot directly access your server. It acts as a fully proxy architecture. It has client-side and server-side connections, both, and they're separate."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"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.​"
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"The most valuable features of Loadbalancer.org are related to its load balancing capabilities."
"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."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us, to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background."
 

Cons

"The solution should add automation features in the next release."
"Traffic flow issues are very difficult, as there's no means for us to analyze the traffic coming in or out of the appliance without technical support."
"The interface and integrated custom applications can be a bit difficult."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"A10 Networks Thunder ADC could improve on the Application Delivery Controller. it's not a fully-fledged web application firewall solution. For example, application data and support need to improve."
"A graphical dashboard for analyzing performance is needed."
"In my opinion, they need to improve their cloud support. There is support for cloud, but not all functions are there, such as high-availability."
"The user interface is not as pretty as it could be."
"The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models."
"I wouldn't recommend the tool to small companies, considering its high price and the infrastructure needs of small businesses."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"It would be good to have better traffic and better data. It would be nice to have more granularity to see packets in terms of the header details, the analytics, etc. It would be nice if that was also part of it and to have analytics added to the traffic."
"Internet and cloud support could be improved."
"One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side."
"There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"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 interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"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."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in Loadbalancer.org in certain areas."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We just pay for support in addition to our licensing."
"It is $7000 per unit for the support annually."
"The price of A10 Networks Thunder ADC depends on capacity and the customer's requirement. They have several offerings. They have different price models and options to choose from. Additionally, you need to subscribe to support for the hardware appliances."
"We did try out the solution’s Harmony analytics and visibility controller for its one-year trial. Due to the cost, we chose not to keep it onsite."
"The pricing is a third of the price of the F5 competition."
"The pricing is fine, considering the features they are providing. If you are an individual user, they'll price the product differently compared to how they price the product that is sold to an organization."
"The price is good they are very comparative."
"The solution costs less than its competitors."
"BIG-IP LTM isn't a cheap solution - I'd rate its pricing as three out of five."
"If you are planning to use security features, better to go for strong hardware and the best bundle license, which is great for web security."
"The price of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is too high."
"The price is little bit on higher side compared to the cost of NGINX."
"We have found the pricing and licensing on AWS to be competitive."
"The price should be reduced because it is expensive when compared to the competition."
"F5 BIG-IP is a stable solution. It is quite mature and does not have many concerns."
"LTM is a good product, but it's expensive. They should make it more competitive because cloud providers offer free load balancing. Cloud providers can't cover all the security aspects of F5, but you get a decent amount of security. Cloud environments are becoming the norm across the IT industry. Many of the larger companies that previously used on-prem infrastructure are switching to the cloud, so companies like Fortinet and Palo Alto are reducing their prices. Otherwise, they can't compete in the cloud."
"The solution requires an annual support license of $2,780 for four systems or $695 a year per unit for support not including the units."
"It's worth the cost. It's not cheap, but it's a good solution. If you're looking for a good solution, this is a good solution. Is it cheap? No. Is it worth the money? Yes, I think it is."
"It was easy to upgrade the license for unlimited clusters and servers. Pricing is fair."
"Loadbalancer.org is based on open-source products, but it requires money for support and other activities."
"They're not the cheapest, not the most expensive, but I think value-wise, they're 100%."
"I’m not entirely sure about the rating since I'm not very technical. I haven't thoroughly compared the ratings. So, if you're asking for my impression so far, I would rate it around five out of 10."
"It filled a requirement for our project, and it did so at lesser cost than their competitors.​"
"For now, it's stable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
6%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
11%
University
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which is the best DDoS protection solution for a big ISP for monitoring and mitigating?
I would recommend A10 Networks due that it delivers high performance in a small form factor to reduce OPEX with signi...
Do you recommend A10 Networks Thunder ADC?
I do recommend A10 Networks Thunder ADC. It's very user-friendly, easy to configure, and flexible. It is a very usefu...
What do you like most about A10 Networks Thunder ADC?
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is an easy-to-use and flexible solution.
What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
The GUI of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could be improved. It's not something regarding how it processes or ...
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a perfect product for load balancing and WAF, and I would recommend it far m...
Do you recommend Loadbalancer.org?
Since Loadbalancer.org is an open-source solution, I would recommend this solution for smaller businesses that don’t ...
What do you like most about Loadbalancer.org?
Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is sc...
 

Also Known As

Thunder ADC, AX Series
F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

123inkt.nl, Bentley University, Box, Brainshark, Buienradar, Capgemini, CGN/LSN & NAT64, Chengdu Telecom, Club One, Code Ready, CRC Health Group, Cyso, Deutsche Telekom, Earth Class Mail, Excite, FFF Enterprises, Florence County, Framingham State University, From30
Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Vodafone, NASA, Mercedes, NBC, Siemens, AT&T, Barclays, Zurich, Penn State University, Fiserv, Canon, Toyota, University of Cambridge, US Army, US Navy, Ocean Spray, ASOS, Pfizer, BBC, Bacardi, Monsoon, River Island, U.S Air Force, King's College London, NHS, Ricoh, Philips, Santander, TATA Communications, Ericcson, Ross Video, Evertz, TalkTalk TV, Giacom, Rapid Host.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetScaler, F5, Microsoft and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: July 2025.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.