We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and HAProxy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution."
"In my team, we work in a very agile environment and the solutions from BIG-IP, including BIG-IP WAF, suit us well when developing and serving our applications."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"I think F5's tech support may be better than Citrix's because they mainly focus on the ADC product, but Citrix support covers Hypervisor, XenMobile, FAS, and ADC. And from my experience, sometimes, we face some issues that Citrix cannot handle."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"The web application firewall feature is the most valuable and useful feature. It is a leading industry product when it comes to load balancing. Its user interface is very simple. There isn't a steep learning curve. When we initiate someone to F5, they start using it quickly."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"Load balancing is valuable, and we are also using the WAF feature."
"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"The most valuable thing for me is TCP/IP Layer 4 stuff you can do with HAProxy. You can go down to the protocol level and make decisions on something."
"The most valuable feature of HAProxy is that its open source."
"Stability is number one."
"The solution is user-friendly and efficient."
"I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are session control which automatically disconnects users that forget to log off, and the ability to write rules to either allow or block certain file requests."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"Technical support is somewhat slow and could be improved."
"F5 could improve the rule-setting capabilities in the GUI, and they need to simplify web management. For example, the menus in the Citrix GUI are easier to navigate, with a clean structure and layout."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version."
"Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future."
"A more hybrid approach would be beneficial for users."
"Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive."
"There are some aspects of F5 BIG-IP that could be improved, the main one being virtual machine support. We have seen that even with the virtual editions, there are some things that we would like to do that are currently not possible with virtual machines."
"The GUI should be more responsive and show the detailed output of logs."
"Sometimes it's challenging to get through the log, and you need a log to understand what is going on. It isn't easy to map the logging with the documentation, and every time I read the log, I have to pull out the documentation to understand what I'm reading."
"I would like to see better search handling, and a user interface, with a complete functional graphical unit"
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"HAProxy could improve by making the dashboards easier to use, and better reports and administration tickets."
"There is no standardized document available. So, any individual has to work from scratch to work it out. If some standard deployment details are available, it would be helpful for people while deploying it. There should be more documentation on the standard deployment."
"The solution can be improved by controlling TCP behavior better and mandating to clients what the expected outcome must be in order to avoid receiving contestant timeout logs."
"The reconfigurability in terms of the tooling could be improved and maybe an editor plugin can be added."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 44 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 5th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 12 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while HAProxy is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Great support, helpful documentation, and is user-friendly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "You can go down to the protocol level and make decisions on something". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas HAProxy is most compared with NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Barracuda Web Application Firewall and Fortinet FortiADC. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. HAProxy report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
