Kemp LoadMaster vs Radware LinkProof comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Kemp LoadMaster and Radware LinkProof 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Kemp LoadMaster vs. Radware LinkProof Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"We needed a Microsoft Threat Management Gateway server replacement solution for a customer and were impressed with the simplified deployment of the Kemp LoadMasters.""Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid.""The security features are the most valuable features of this solution.""​Simple to install with good documentation.""The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency.""The user interface is very easy to work with.""The old process of manually having to redirect Outlook Web Access traffic and Email traffic to a second server is a thing of the past.""It is an easy-to-use, user-friendly interface, and you can set up a new VIP in a couple of minutes."

More Kemp LoadMaster Pros →

"Provides good performance and scalability.""The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof is that it supports link load balance.""The performance and stability are the most valuable features.""The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof for traffic distribution is its DNS management capability.""It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."

More Radware LinkProof Pros →

Cons
"I really don't like the way the logs are presented in the software.""Hardware version needs a dual power solution.""They need to improve the UI environment. Currently, it's hard to navigate and use product.""I would like to see more automation and control of overactive and inactive resources. If I could schedule these around our updates then it would be all automated. I would like to set up an automated script to coincide with the scripts I use to update resources and servers.""They were still in the process of development, and for example, we set it up in a cluster. So it was one logistical unit built out of two physical devices. And the expected behavior, which I know from other devices, will be formed into a logic cluster. It's that you configure one unit. Then you bring the second unit into this cluster with the already configured primary unit. So the secondary box pulls all the configured ones from its neighbor, does everything automatically, and then synchronizes with this primary neighbor. And then it works, like, one logical unit. And this didn't work with the Kemp's initially, where they caused a lot of issues when building up a cluster, so there were some specials on how to set this up. When we built or set them up for the first time and the months afterward with no new software releases, there were a couple of problems, but in the end, they worked fine. So, they developed a lot and learned from what they've responded to, what we responded to them, and what needs fixing.""It would be helpful if there were a way to incorporate tooltips on the fields so that we don't have to dig through documentation.""SNMP and/or RESTCONF management, in order to collect many counters, for plotting in a central application need to be improved.""I think there should be more visual instructions on how to configure advanced features."

More Kemp LoadMaster Cons →

"Radware LinkProof's marketing efforts need improvement to raise awareness about its capabilities and compete effectively in the market.""The solution lacks HA configuration.""Radware LinkProof’s customer support could be improved.""Could have more customizations on the dashboard.""There are certain features I would like to see in the next release."

More Radware LinkProof Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Download Kemp's VLM trial and take it for a test drive; you will be impressed."
  • "It has a very attractive ratio of price/performance."
  • "​I have control on the licensing and all the prices since I work for a partner.​"
  • "KEMP gives away free trials for 30 days. This can be stretched if you want. During the test, you will have access to KEMP support.​"
  • "It has a great price for the solution they offer."
  • "The license varies according to the number of megabits."
  • "Licensing is yearly and I am going to guess that it is CAN $2000.00."
  • "Any decent product will cost money and if you want great support and a great product, then you will want to spend the money on it."
  • More Kemp LoadMaster Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Radware LinkProof is neither cheap nor expensive."
  • "Price-wise, the solution is a reasonable one."
  • More Radware LinkProof Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...I rate the technical support a ten out of ten...The initial setup of Kemp LoadMaster is very simple.
    Top Answer:LoadMaster is cheaper than some other solutions. It has a perpetual license, so it's a one-time cost.
    Top Answer:My company is really happy with Kemp LoadMaster as a product. My company is also happy with the support we receive from Kemp LoadMaster. I want Kemp LoadMaster to provide users with better reporting… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature of Radware LinkProof is that it supports link load balance.
    Top Answer:Radware LinkProof is neither cheap nor expensive. I rate Radware LinkProof a six or seven out of ten for pricing.
    Top Answer:Radware LinkProof is used for link load balancing. Whenever many servers are connected with Radware LinkProof, users can use their logins to use a firewall. And when a firewall is unavailable, Radware… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    7,335
    Comparisons
    4,413
    Reviews
    6
    Average Words per Review
    398
    Rating
    9.2
    Views
    586
    Comparisons
    468
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    400
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    LoadMaster Load Balancer
    LinkProof
    Learn More
    Overview

    Kemp LoadMaster is a powerful load balancing solution that also serves as a web application firewall. Its primary use case is load balancing and application load balancing, making it an ideal solution for organizations that must distribute traffic across multiple servers. Kemp's integration with an active directory for ESP usage, hosting/deployment of SSL certificates, and pricing are some of its most valuable features. 

    Using Kemp has helped organizations mitigate cross-scripting vulnerabilities, cookie-related issues, and content security policy issues. It has also allowed them to handle everything with Kemp instead of working on each application individually.

    Radware LinkProof NG link load balancer cloud-based applications, is a multi-homing and enterprise gateway solution that offers service level availability and continuous connectivity of enterprise. It is an application-aware multi-homing and link load balancing module that delivers WAN optimization for 24/7 continuous connectivity and service level assurance for corporate and cloud-based applications. LinkProof NG scales from 100Mbps up to 160Gbps and can be deployed in entry-level to high-end data centers as well as enterprise branch offices.
    Sample Customers
    Kent County Council, KEMP, SMA Solar Technology AG, RT€ Player , Victrix (Quebec, Canada), Texas A&M, Macmillan Cancer Support, Cisco, Austin Bank
    Papa John's, OSRAM, ADP, NYLS
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company27%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Energy/Utilities Company10%
    Transportation Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization57%
    Computer Software Company8%
    Government4%
    Comms Service Provider4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company24%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Healthcare Company7%
    Retailer7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business45%
    Midsize Enterprise25%
    Large Enterprise29%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business12%
    Midsize Enterprise64%
    Large Enterprise24%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business31%
    Midsize Enterprise7%
    Large Enterprise62%
    Buyer's Guide
    Kemp LoadMaster vs. Radware LinkProof
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Kemp LoadMaster vs. Radware LinkProof and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews while Radware LinkProof is ranked 13th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 5 reviews. Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4, while Radware LinkProof 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 Radware LinkProof writes "Supports link load balance and has good stability". Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), whereas Radware LinkProof is most compared with Radware Alteon, A10 Networks Thunder ADC, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and HAProxy. See our Kemp LoadMaster vs. Radware LinkProof 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.