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."NetFlow balancing and traffic balancing are good features."
"You can create multiple virtual servers on F5 BIG-IP technology, and within multiple virtual servers you can have multiple nodes, where a node equals two application servers."
"The value and impact of using F5 BIG-IP LTM for application delivery control in our organization are significant."
"We like the capability to combine the content switching with the intrusion prevention and adding the security roles, so we can expose certain sub-pieces outside without exposing everything."
"One of the greatest things about F5 Load Balancer is that it provides additional capability for handling huge workloads and routing them to an SAP or non-SAP application. It is capable of supporting a large amount of user workload and application connectivity workload. This was the main reason why we chose F5."
"The setup is pretty easy."
"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 is very intuitive, easy to deploy, and manage."
"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"Stability is number one."
"What I like best about the product is its simplicity and speed. When you need to set up a load balancer quickly, HAProxy offers options like sticky sessions and round-robin. It's also fast to configure, including adding SSL for security. While it may have fewer options than other solutions like F5, HAProxy gets the job done for basic load-balancing tasks."
"Software defined load balancing allows us to dynamically adjust and codify routing decisions. This speeds up development."
"I am also able to make configuration changes during the day, in production, with no worries of problems and/or downtime occurring."
"It is a crucial tool in ensuring smooth service provision without any interruptions."
"The anti-DDOS PacketShield filtering solution (embedded in the physical appliances) as well as the BGP route injection are great features and heavily used."
"I estimate that this product has saved our company hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in possible downtime from previous load balancers. We make a lot of our money from online sales, so it is critical to have 99.9% uptime."
"One area for improvement with F5 BIG-IP LTM could be its pricing, which some may find on the higher side."
"The management interface is unclear, complex, and not concise. I would like a better user interface."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"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."
"There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues not affecting production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. An ordeal for the manager."
"I would like to see better integration."
"An area for improvement in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is that it's a high-priced product."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"The product does not have any new technologies."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"We would like to see dynamic ACL and port update support. Our infrastructure relies on randomly allocated ports and this feature would allow us to update without restarting the process."
"The visibility could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It could be cheaper."
"The basic clustering is not usable in our very specific setup. The clustering is mainly a configuration replication and is great in a case of active-passive usage. In the case of an active-active (or with more than two nodes) where the configuration is not fully identical, it cannot be used as-is."
"The web stats UI, which provides the status of the health and numbers, could greatly benefit from having a RESTful interface to control the load-balanced nodes. Although there is a hack around the UI (by issuing a POST request to HAProxy with parameters), a RESTful interface would greatly improve the automation process (through Chef and Ansible)."
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 116 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Offers good integration capabilities but needs to improve the monitoring part". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy. 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.