Buyer's Guide
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
October 2022
Get our free report covering Microsoft, F5, Citrix, and other competitors of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Updated: October 2022.
653,584 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) alternatives and competitors

Santiago Castro - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Architect at a sports company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Reliable, quick to deploy, and easy to implement
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution has been very stable."
  • "We’d like the solution to include more security features in the standard license."

What is our primary use case?

The solution is basically used for load balancing. We do build for load balancing as well. We have several load balancers in the physical and cloud space. We started using it for GTM and also use it for some iRules scripting and to modify the SDP draft.

How has it helped my organization?

It was way cheaper than F5, so that was the reason to move from F5 to Radware. In terms of value for money, maybe it's better. F5 is very good. However, it was really expensive. This solution is also quite good, yet costs much less.

What is most valuable?

It's quite a nice solution. It's like F5. They are very good products and are very easy to use. They're very powerful, you can do a lot of things with the scripting, and also even in the interface and the graphic interface, you can configure other things without going to the scripting, to the rules.

The initial setup is easy and it was quick to deploy.

The solution has been very stable.

What needs improvement?

Maybe there are a couple of things that didn't work very well. You kind of have the same build and different build for load balancers. It can create some issues. We faced issues where we needed to have some kind of the same balance in different environments. That happened with F5. However, in Radware, you can do it when we move to production and we need to change the balance there. Different environments should be able to have some balance to be completely isolated. That's something that they could really improve to make it really, really isolated.

We’d like the solution to include more security features in the standard license.

For how long have I used the solution?

We just acquired Radware in the last few months. IT’s been about eight months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable. In the last eight months since we migrated, we’ve had no big issues. Everything is working fine. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash or freeze.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is about licensing. You require more bandwidth and more throughput. To scale, it’s about acquiring more licensing. That’s about it.

For example, if you have a license of 30GBs of traffic and may need to support up to maybe 80GBs. You need to increase the license. You can kind of use it on demand, however. If you can change the license every three years, and you can see that your throughput is going to increase a lot, you can scale up.

We have about ten people on the solution currently. We do have plans to potentially increase usage in the future.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support was okay. We opened a couple of tickets, it was okay. They were fast and they fixed the issues.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We just migrated to Radware from F5 APM. It’s quite new. It's really, really powerful. However, they are very good load balancers.

How was the initial setup?

The setup is relatively straightforward. To do clustering is very easy. It's way easier than F5, I would say.

The deployment was quite fast. The problem was that migrating from F5 took a lot because we had to add the Windows in place and handle the service impact. That said, deploying is fast. If you are in the integration field and you don't have to migrate, it's pretty fast.

How many people you need to maintain the solution depends on the size. However, you might need four or five people.

What about the implementation team?

There was a mix of personnel helping with the setup. I was doing it mostly myself. However, I had the help of professional services from Radware.

What was our ROI?

For the amount of traffic that we use, it's as good as F5 and way cheaper.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is much more reasonable than, for example, F5, our old solution.

I’m not sure how much the solution costs. However, my understanding is that it is moderately priced. I’d rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability. It’s not cheaper. However, it is less expensive than F5.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We checked in with Citrix as well. It was also good. In the end, we went to Radware.

What other advice do I have?

We’re just a customer.

We’re using one of the most recent versions of the solution.

It's a very good product, however, if it would work for your company would depend on your needs. It depends on the amount of traffic.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
reviewer1486944 - PeerSpot reviewer
Systems Administrator II at Lincoln Land Community College
MSP
Top 20
Easy to set up, reliable, provides seamless failover, and the powerful load balancing capabilities save us money
Pros and Cons
  • "Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid."
  • "It would be much easier to have the management interface directly integrate with the Kemp Support library, allowing you to choose the desired template from the online catalog to then directly download to the LoadMaster."

What is our primary use case?

We use an on-premises Skype for Business Server VoIP service that utilizes the Kemp LoadMaster LM-2400 for service resiliency. This allows our three front-end servers to seamlessly support our service. We never miss a call and our chat service is always ready as a result.

Kemp has a pre-made virtual service profile that perfectly fits our use case so the initial setup is quite easy. We also have expanded the use of the LoadMaster to accommodate a number of ancillary services that also require resilience.

How has it helped my organization?

The Kemp LoadMaster is easy to set up, well documented, and very easy to maintain. It has done a flawless job supporting our Microsoft Skype for Business Server VoIP services, as well as expanding to cover a number of other services that require load balancing.

The LoadMaster has helped to keep our Voice over IP services in-house, which has produced tremendous savings versus hosting our services in the cloud. This has allowed us to devote our resources to other projects, increasing our overall effectiveness.

What is most valuable?

The load balancing features of the LoadMaster are the best we have used.

Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid. Kemp maintains a library of templates pre-configured for a number of services, including Microsoft Skype for Business Server. This makes configuring the virtual services very easy. It also makes it very easy to add additional virtual services as you find new use cases. The convenience of being able to download new or updated templates from Kemp's support site cannot be understated.

What needs improvement?

If I had to pick an area for improvement, I think it would be direct integration with the template library. At present, you need to download the templates from the Kemp support portal and then upload them onto the LoadMaster. It would be much easier to have the management interface directly integrate with the Kemp Support library, allowing you to choose the desired template from the online catalog to then directly download to the LoadMaster.

For how long have I used the solution?

We first implemented our Kemp LoadMaster eight years ago when we launched a new VoIP project that required load balancing for enhanced reliability.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is rock solid. We have only experienced one issue in eight years. Kemp support was all over it and got us back online in no time.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

For our organization, the LM-2400 is perfectly sized. I'm sure it has an upper limit but we have not gotten anywhere near it yet.

How are customer service and technical support?

Kemp tech support has been absolutely fantastic. 

We have had one hardware issue, which over a span of eight years isn't bad at all, and one setup question. Both of these issues were handled quickly and to our satisfaction.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we had been using a Barracuda load balancer. It was nice but the management was not as easy to use and it was not quite as reliable as we would have liked.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. The virtual service templates provided by Kemp make setup a snap!

What about the implementation team?

We used a vendor team but our assigned technician was not familiar with networking or load balancing. I ended up taking over the setup and it couldn't have been easier.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The Kemp LoadMaster is a tremendous value. It works well and is easy to set up and to maintain.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Barracuda and F5 were evaluated as well. The performance and value were found to be much better with the Kemp LoadMaster.

What other advice do I have?

The Kemp LoadMaster just works. It is extraordinarily difficult to suggest any changes that might improve its feature set. Go with Kemp, you won't regret it!

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Bhaskar Rao - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Network Engineer at Yamaha
Real User
Top 5
Open-source, simple to install, and reliable
Pros and Cons
  • "I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good."
  • "While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source."

What is our primary use case?

For production purposes, we use HAProxy, which is a web application.

Our primary use case is load balancing.

What is most valuable?

We are not fully utilizing it. We are only responsible for load balancing. The most used and valuable is load balancing.

I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good.

What needs improvement?

Although HAProxy is essentially open-source, many features are not available.

While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source.

We are only experiencing problems at that time. Otherwise, everything is fine.

Because we need to search for a document or some troubleshooting information. That could be beneficial to us.

To resolve the troubleshooting issues, additional documentation and troubleshooting are required.

The product is satisfactory. However, additional documentation, additional technical documents, and troubleshooting steps are the types of things that can only make this solution better. Also, more clarity on where the package is hitting and where it is stopping is needed.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using HAProxy for four or five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

HAProxy is generally stable. We had only two days of problems in the last five years, this was an extremely rare occurrence. We are back to being stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have publicly permitted our web application for this, and approximately 5,000 users are using it.

It is used every day because it is our production-related order-lease domain or something along those lines. We are also using this as a dealer, with approximately 5,000 users per day.

Normal users. We will publish it on one of the websites that provide the production information. We provide the order and invoice the order to the product. These are the types of details. This is our dealership's publisher for an automotive dealership.

It is essentially the dealership's publisher.

HAProxy is scalable. There are plans to expand to the Japan team. They may suggest a paid tool.

How are customer service and support?

I would rate their technical support a three out of five. Additional documents and troubleshooting should be made available on the internet.

There is no direct support. We use open-source software and do not rely on their support. We rely on our knowledge, and we are studying the implementation.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we were using F5. F5 is a very good product.

It's a great product that is also very stable and scalable, but it is very expensive in terms of price.

We switched to HAProxy because it is open-source.

We are also working with Zscaler and FortiGate.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is easy.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

What about the implementation team?

We completed the installation in-house and did not use a third party.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

HAProxy is free open-source software.

What other advice do I have?

It will primarily be determined by the budget, the size of their company's budget, or if you have the budget. I would always recommend the F5. Because it has more clarity and more features are available in the F5, if budget is an issue, go with HAProxy. It's a good product.

If you are not utilizing very basic things that you should be using for the HAProxy.

Depending on the balance If the balance is very minimal, they should use HAProxy, an open-source solution, but if the balance is larger, such as an enterprise, they should use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic.

I would rate HAProxy an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Security Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10
Seamless virtual desktop integration, but not suitable for largescale enterprises or complicated uses
Pros and Cons
  • "The feature that I have found most valuable is its load balancing."
  • "In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated."

What is our primary use case?

We are only using it for load balancing and application firewalls.

What is most valuable?

The feature that I have found most valuable is its load balancing.

Citrix ADC is actually not the most preferable product from our perspective but for the virtual desktop use it is very efficient. It's very integrated with the virtual desktop. It has a seamless integration and that is the most valuable part.

Since it has a significant integration with its virtualization, that has improved the usability access of the virtual desktops.

What needs improvement?

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated.

In the next release, I would like to see advanced language support for managing the traffic, rather than only the RegEx. That would be helpful.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Citrix ADC for about five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In terms of stability, it is not as good as F5. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is not as scalable as F5.

There are three people using it, and they're all engineers.

It takes one staff member for the deployment and maintenance - also an engineer.

We have a static user base in our organization, but for our customer base its use is going to be expanded.

How are customer service and support?

The technical support is not bad.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We are using most of the solutions together, so there is no switching between the products. We are currently using F5, too, and we always prefer that first. But it depends on the deployment and it depends on the needs. For deployments we choose Citrix.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. It took two hours.

Our strategy is just deploy and use it. It's a simple process for us.

What about the implementation team?

We are the integrators.

What other advice do I have?

If they are going to use it with the VDI, it is a very good product, but it has weaknesses in application firewall development. So if they are going to only do load balancing in an SMB solution, it is a good product. But if they're consulting as an enterprise product and in a very large scale deployment enterprise, Citrix is not a complete solution. But for an SMB product and a basic cloud balance, it is a good product.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Citrix ADC a seven. It does what it does. It is a product for some simple tasks, but just not suitable for the complex tasks.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
System Engeneer at CROC
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Open-source, suited for small business with limited resources, and is easy to deploy
Pros and Cons
  • "Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
  • "Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."

What is our primary use case?

In our experience, Loadbalancer.org is best suited for small businesses looking to balance their website. They don't require HA, DR, or anything else.

What is most valuable?

Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix. In some cases, our customers do not have an engineer on staff who can support this device.

These customers have a large number of Linux engineers but don't have the money. We suggested using Loadbalancer.org and other open-source tools. Many customers are of different sizes and have different budgets.

Loadbalancer.org has everything that is needed.

What needs improvement?

The price could be reduced. 

Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced.

For how long have I used the solution?

I last used Loadbalancer.org three years ago, but I deploy this solution for our clients.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I am also working with F5, Kemp, Barracuda, Cisco, and NGINX.

The last time that I used Barracuda was three to five years ago.

We used F5 Big-IP with some customers and deployed it to others.

How was the initial setup?

It is easy to deploy Loadbalancer.org.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Loadbalancer.org is an open-source solution, with additional costs, however, in some cases, the price remains the same. It is dependent on the customer and what discounts F5 has given.

Loadbalancer.org is based on open-source products, but it requires money for support and other activities.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution for small businesses with limited resources and do not have complicated requirements.

I would rate Loadbalancer.org an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Buyer's Guide
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
October 2022
Get our free report covering Microsoft, F5, Citrix, and other competitors of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Updated: October 2022.
653,584 professionals have used our research since 2012.