We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiADC, 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 most valuable feature is the F5 LTM (Local Traffic Manager). This is the part of the product most organisations will be using most. It provides the core functionality to be able to load balance services and the means and the intelligence to be able to load balance based on advanced logic, e.g., TCL scripting."
"The product is quite flexible."
"We are using Application Security Manager (ASM) as a web application firewall, where there is a security signature to avoid a web level breach."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"The most valuable feature is the proxy."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"The tech support we got from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager directly was pretty good."
"I am impressed with the product's load-balancing feature."
"The GSLB, the DR side, is the best part. Because we had our main side in one city, we created another, and we had a complete MPLS over the internet. We used the GSLB and data loss for our business applications."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL offloading capacity."
"Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it."
"The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"Ease of use in deploying and having it up and running requires minimal knowledge."
"Because ADC is the intermediary between the servers and the end-user application, it gives thorough information about the traffic, what the problem is."
"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."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"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."
"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."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"We need best-practice information. They have something called DevCentral and a blog. But we want something from F5 itself regarding how to tackle the false-positive configurations. If you go into detail with so many configurations it will find so many false positives from the moment it is enabled that it will quickly impact your applications, and it will not work."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome."
"A more intuitive interface would be helpful."
"An area for improvement in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is that it's a high-priced product."
"The solution's initial setup process was quite complex. I"
"Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The product's stability for VMs could be better."
"The configuration is relatively complex."
"The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives."
"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."
"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."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"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."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
