We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Loadbalancer.org 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."The solution's stability is pretty good."
"I have found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) to be stable."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"The load balancing function, the monitors that you can create, and iRules programmability are most valuable."
"In terms of stability, it is stable."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is very easy to use, from SSL Management to enabling, disabling loads, applications, systems, and monitoring. Overall the solution keeps our application functional from a client's perspective 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
"The tech support we got from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager directly was pretty good."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"I like the different ways to balance the chart."
"The performance is good."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"There are not very many areas for improvement, but the price is high."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"A lot of functions that are attributed to iRules can actually be simple profile changes. iRules do have a certain performance impact. Therefore, instead of writing simple iRules, they can create certain profiles for classes that will perform the same function."
"I'm not very sure about the security with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). We have our own private data center, but we are going to migrate our private data center into the Azure cloud environment. Security will then be a major concern when we migrate our own whole infrastructure to the public cloud."
"The initial setup can be complex - it's quite flexible in terms of configuration, but the person configuring it needs to understand the application side, the network side, and the server."
"The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization. It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management."
"LTM would be improved with the inclusion of signature-based blocking."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is sometimes a bit cumbersome to deal with some builds, although that's gotten significantly better over the years."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"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 configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"Loadbalancer is expensive. At Globo, it is probably the most expensive tool we use. Annually, we are paying more than $1 million."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
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 43 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 8th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 9 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.4. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Citrix NetScaler, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC and HAProxy, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with HAProxy, Citrix NetScaler, Kemp LoadMaster, Fortinet FortiADC and NGINX Plus. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Loadbalancer.org 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.
