We performed a comparison between Array APV Series, Citrix NetScaler, 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)."One of the most valuable features of this solution is the server load balancing. Something that sets this solution apart from other products is that the hardware has a much higher capacity than other vendors. That's the edge of Array Networks. Their technical support services are also very good."
"The program is easy to install and to set up."
"The MAS integration for HDX Insight has provided teams with significant visibility into network performance of the user's connection."
"Its customer support service is good."
"The most valuable features of Citrix ADC are load balancing and application firewall."
"Global load balancing between data centers."
"NetScaler Gateway: Why? Availability/Security: We delivered more than 200 applications thru Xenapp. This feature give us the possibility to deliver the applications anywhere. Currently, 30% of access is made through our NetScaler Gateway (Internet connections)."
"SSL Offload"
"Easy, user-friendly setup with content switching and integrated caching features."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are the ease of managing the logs on the WAFs, the ease to identify break-in attempts into the network, the front-end firewall, and a more specific firewall."
"The performance is good."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"I would like to see more granular reporting and monitoring features, and I believe our clients want to see them as well. Also, SD-WAN would be a good addition."
"In every release - and it doesn't matter if it's a minor release or a major release - they keep moving things around and they keep changing the mechanism. So certain things can work in one version one way, and everything works really well, then when you upgrade it to the next version, it breaks everything because they have a new way of doing it."
"There are some features which are missing."
"They can improve the scalability and the multi-tenancy feature. We recently tried to configure an authentication, and we ran into some issues while using the web-based GUI. It was very slow when you log in with your credentials in the web-based GUI. Each time we clicked on the menu, it tried to do the authentication. It works properly in the console."
"The interface needs to be improved because the competition is coming up with ones that are more eye-catching, straightforward, and sophisticated."
"Currently, it is not easy to use the configuration capabilities of the product."
"The customization has always been a key area where some improvements are required. In the beginning, everything was for customizing the outer shell of it. You had to use the command-based utility and you had to do a lot of manual work. They have improved it a little bit and now there are some GUI-based functionalities that can be used. However, more can be done that doesn't require a lot of intervention. Right now there are some features, there are some customizations that can be done, but it's still very tedious, very cumbersome, a lot of work. So that could be simplified."
"Mastering it requires significant learning and training due to its complexity."
"We would like to see some fairly large scale improvement in the configuration process for this solution."
"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."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"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."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
