We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Thunder ADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), and Loadbalancer.org based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."The solution is user-friendly and the CLA troubleshooting is easier compared to other solutions."
"It helps with the efficiency of application deployments and data security."
"It is very useful to have a simple dashboard where you can login and look into what your traffic patterns are, then look and see what times of day you're experiencing the heaviest traffic. You can quickly identify if you are possibly having a security issue or security breach. It makes it very easy to use the box."
"Compared to F5, which I used about six years ago, the A10 is much easier when routing. You don't have to use the wildcard bits to route it between the different segments. It's much less troublesome to configure."
"The solution is flexible."
"The Deterministic CGNAT feature is valuable for us."
"It's a very friendly solution, easy to configure and it's very flexible."
"For the past two and a half years, we have not had a need to open a tech support ticket. It is really stable. In the past, our experience with tech support was that they were extremely helpful."
"The load balancing function, the monitors that you can create, and iRules programmability are most valuable."
"ASM for WAF."
"We have found the consistency of the application always being the way it is supposed to be as its most valuable feature."
"We like the capability to combine the content switching with the intrusion prevention and adding the security roles, so we can expose certain sub-pieces outside without exposing everything."
"The v11 clustering is a new technology they have brought in that does not require improvement. They are the leader in it."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"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."
"I like that F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a product that comes with valuable features, but what stands out from all features is load balancing."
"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."
"For now, it's stable."
"We have about 30,000 connections going through at any one time and it's fine, it doesn't seem to sweat. It doesn't get overloaded."
"With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"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."
"The user interface is what people complain about most of the time, particularly if they don't use it very often. Then they complain that it's a bit clunky."
"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."
"There is two-factor authentication built-in, but it could be more robust."
"It scaled well for our numbers, up to 3 million subscribers for our most crowded region but I would like to see the same scalability numbers for the virtualized version as well."
"A graphical dashboard for analyzing performance is needed."
"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."
"We are starting to do a lot with containers and how the solution hooks into Kubernetes that we haven't explored. I'm hoping that they have a lot of hooks into Kubernetes. That would be the part for improvement: Marketing use cases with containers."
"Improvements should enable customers to build a tailor-made solution in the future through a service portal."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"Internet and cloud support could be improved."
"My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"The solution's initial setup process was quite complex. I"
"There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions."
"They need to develop the reporting tools further."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
