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

Array APV Series vs Loadbalancer.org comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Array APV Series
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
15th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Loadbalancer.org
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
12th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of Array APV Series is 0.6%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Loadbalancer.org is 3.7%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

Gibert  Fidel - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhancing user experience through efficient application delivery control
The primary use case of Array APV Series is for load balancing of the applications and their web applications It provides a better user experience when accessing the clients' applications, making it much faster for users when they are using the applications. The most valuable feature is the…
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 most valuable feature is the application delivery control, which includes server load balancing and global server load balancing."
"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 connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"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."
"For now, it's stable."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"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."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members.​"
 

Cons

"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."
"Technical support should be better."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"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."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"There is room for improvement in Loadbalancer.org in certain areas."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the price for Array APV is very competitive, and some of our clients are very satisfied when it comes to the price."
"They're not the cheapest, not the most expensive, but I think value-wise, they're 100%."
"We've got an unlimited license, which doesn't costs that much compared to other vendors, and we don't have to buy it again."
"It was easy to upgrade the license for unlimited clusters and servers. Pricing is fair."
"For now, it's stable."
"It is inexpensive, and even their “unlimited” version, the VA MAX is still far cheaper than competitors."
"Licensing fees are paid annually."
"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 filled a requirement for our project, and it did so at lesser cost than their competitors.​"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
27%
Insurance Company
18%
Newspaper
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
16%
University
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Array APV Series?
The pricing is rated at eight out of ten, indicating that it could be improved as the product is expensive.
What needs improvement with Array APV Series?
The solution is usually optimized for client services, and they would benefit from it being a perpetual license, where they only need to renew the support, such as hardware replacement and technica...
What is your primary use case for Array APV Series?
The primary use case of Array APV Series is for load balancing of the applications and their web applications.
Do you recommend Loadbalancer.org?
Since Loadbalancer.org is an open-source solution, I would recommend this solution for smaller businesses that don’t have major scaling requirements and don’t have the budget for a commercial solut...
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 scalable and easily managed.
 

Also Known As

APV Series
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SoftLayer, Trapp Technology, eClinicalWorks, eMeetingsOnline, YourMembership.com, Cash Depot, Needham Bank, State Bank of India, Yahoo Japan Financial Exchange, TechProcess
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 Array APV Series vs. Loadbalancer.org and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.