We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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 WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution for my organization is its UI since it allows us to see the clusters while providing a very specific and good overall understanding."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"What's most valuable in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its deployment capability, the ability to deploy in a dispersed service, with the service engines that can disperse and have a single control plane that can control the load balancing services across any available platform, wherever needed. The analytics of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and flexibility of deployment are its most valuable features and the reasons why many people buy it."
"The solution is stable."
"Its visibility and login mechanism are the best parts. In addition to the great visibility it has a great dashboard and an easy to configure graphic user interface, a beautiful GUI."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"Secure and scalable traffic management solution for applications. Good for bigger environments."
"Tech support has been very quick to respond to all of the needs that we've had. If you want ad-hoc support. They also provide professional services that you can purchase as well."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is it helps our delivery team to make policies and rules for application."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"It is a fast and available solution."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"The BIG-IP’s interface is more intuitive than other GUIs. It is well structured, not overloaded, and does not have too many gimmicks."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"One struggle with Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its integration with other VMware products. Integration could be improved in the solution so that you have a more unified control plane with it and other data center security and networking products that VMware sells. There has been a bit of a lag on the roadmap of new features that have come out there recently, but better interoperability with the hyperscale environments such as the AWS, Azure, GCPs of the world, and simpler deployment and interoperability with those existing tools, are areas that are receiving attention and could use additional attention today. These are the areas for improvement in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"It would possibly help to get more training, even better in local languages."
"Bugs are the part of program and they are fixed with every release, as with any vendor."
"I would like to see improvement in the manageability and easier setup."
"The pricing of the product is a bit too high."
"The product is expensive."
"There is a need for a more modular version to concentrate on the current monolithic structure of both the virtual and hardware versions."
"The user experience for dashboards and reports can be improved. They should make dashboards and the reporting system easier for users. They need to add more reports to the dashboard. Currently, for complicated reports, I have to do the customization. It should have more integration with network firewalls to be able to gather all the information required for traffic management."
"The analytics should provide insight into latency across various traffic routes and virtual servers."
More Avi Networks Software Load Balancer Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is ranked 9th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer writes "Easy to set up and has good integration into the host environment but needs better third party integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC and Radware Alteon, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Radware Alteon. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.