We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Loadbalancer.org, and NGINX Plus 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 solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"BIG-IP LTM is completely stable, and its performance is good."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The configuration and integration into the AWS environment was pretty easy."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) improves the resilience and quality of the application itself, the speed and the user experience for the application. The data that the users need from the application is actually acquired faster. So, it provides faster data acquisition."
"It has made it a single entry point for all users, verging across all the VPCs. It is more of an SSO solution versus multitier user loggin."
"it has TCP LAN and WAN optimization features. It has has caching."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"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."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"We have about 30,000 connections going through at any one time and it's fine, it doesn't seem to sweat. It doesn't get overloaded."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"Application Gateway with application-level firewall tool and load distributor and balancer (also serves for A/B testing)."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is simple to configure."
"The most valuable features are the gateway and the ability to publish to sites."
"Its versatility and capabilities make it invaluable for implementing patches and fixes when necessary."
"NGINX Plus also has NGINX App Protect. It's a separate module, which is inspired by the F5 apps."
"The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions."
"Supports IMAP, POP and SMTP protocols for the reverse proxy."
"The product is resilient."
"The web interface could be better."
"I would like to see better integration."
"One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side."
"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."
"Right now, there are a lot of products within F5's portfolio. They acquired a couple of companies like NGINX and Volterra. Some features and technologies overlapped when this acquisition occurred. They need to refine it and come up with a single, proper solution. F5 should focus more on zero trust network access (ZTNA).They should be more focused on that framework because the industry is moving towards that. Everyone is talking about SASE and zero trust."
"Bugs are the part of program and they are fixed with every release, as with any vendor."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Initial setup is tricky, if you do not understand the design of this product."
"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."
"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."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"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."
"Lack of a feature to print data on the terminal for verification of network traffic during debugging and testing."
"I would suggest adding GUI-based configuration panels to NGINX Plus to simplify setup and management tasks."
"The solution needs to be easier to setup and deploy."
"The KPI should be more focused on load balancing and the latency in application calling from the end system."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"The scaling should be built into the software rather than configured from an outside source."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The scalability could be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
