We performed a comparison between Kemp LoadMaster 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 most valuable features for us are the Load Balancing and Web Application Firewall, as we have a lot of web applications."
"Managing and maintaining multiple servers is done in a single place."
"It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs."
"We needed a Microsoft Threat Management Gateway server replacement solution for a customer and were impressed with the simplified deployment of the Kemp LoadMasters."
"Simple to install with good documentation."
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"The configuration is really easy and the web portal is self-explanatory."
"We are most impressed with the ease of use and great support."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
"The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"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."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"The configuration of the basic services is pretty straight forward but for more complex solutions, there needs to be better documentation or knowledge base articles."
"I definitely think that the WAF can be improved."
"If I had to change something it would maybe be to have a little better reporting graphics that show more details in the reporting. It seems to be a little small in the graphic, and I'm not sure if possible but maybe a GUI page that one can use to monitor if any server goes down."
"Although Kemp is very user-friendly, it lacks a more custom configuration."
"I want Kemp LoadMaster to provide users with better reporting capabilities in relation to TCP packets. In general, the connections that are present in the system require improvement."
"If there is anything that needs to be updated, the GUI can get a refresh to make it look more like 2020, although it is just a cosmetic change."
"Over the last several major versions, the GUI has remained virtually unchanged and still seems lacking."
"The only thing that I miss is that the TMG server was giving me live information about who is connected and what is the request about."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"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."
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"The automatic refresh of the System Overview webpage: It sometimes has an extra webpage reload (after a change) before you see it is executed. This can be confusing."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC and Avi Networks Software Load Balancer, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and NGINX Plus. See our Kemp LoadMaster 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.
No experience with Loadbalancer.org, but having had experience with both F5 and Kemp, I would recommend Kemp by a mile. Their support org is first class and super responsive.
https://www.itcentralstation.c...
IT Central Station has one here that is a comparison: https://tinyurl.com/y6lhtdnr