"The support for all major Linux distros makes running and testing a breeze."
"The most important features would be the load-balancing of HTTP and TCP requests, according to multiple LB-algorithms (busyness, weighted-busyness, round robin, traffic, etc). Another important feature that we cannot live without is the username/passwd authentication for legacy systems that had none."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"HAProxy's TCP load balancer is excellent and super stable."
"It improves our scalability and responsiveness services to meet our demanding customer requirements."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"HAProxy Enterprise Edition has been rock solid. We have essentially had no downtime caused by our load balancers in the last 10 months, because they’ve worked so well. Previously, our load balancers caused us multiple hours per year in downtime."
"It is stable. Period. Will not fail unless you do something wrong."
"It is a scalable product."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"We need to handle new connections by dropping, or queuing them while the HAProxy restarts, and because HAProxy does not handle split config files."
"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 logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"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)."
"The initial setup is complicated. Although Kuma has its own CLI, CTL, and they say to use their CLI, if I have to build a generic solution, my personal preference would be to use Helm or another similar solution other than Kuma. If you have your own library CLI, it becomes hard for others to adopt it. For example, if I have to write some automation, infrastructure automation, I can't just use Kuma. I have to change my code to use Kuma's CTL, which is unfair because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit with my current automation structure. I have to do something extra, something additional, which I really don't like."
HAProxy is ranked 2nd in Service Mesh with 41 reviews while Kong Mesh is ranked 3rd in Service Mesh with 1 review. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Kong Mesh is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kong Mesh writes "Provides a unique advantage by offering a global view for all workloads and clusters within the mesh but lack of a robust community for open-source support". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), whereas Kong Mesh is most compared with Istio, Envoy, HashiCorp Consul and Traefik Enterprise.
See our list of best Service Mesh vendors.
We monitor all Service Mesh 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.