We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Kemp LoadMaster 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."I think F5's tech support may be better than Citrix's because they mainly focus on the ADC product, but Citrix support covers Hypervisor, XenMobile, FAS, and ADC. And from my experience, sometimes, we face some issues that Citrix cannot handle."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"It is the perfect solution when you have high workloads in your IT environment."
"I have Big-IP change and control manager, which give me the roll back option. Therefore, I can view the last things which happened on the device."
"Stable and scalable network traffic management solution for applications. It has good performance."
"The most valuable features are the WAF and the big IP."
"There is a simplicity to the setup and configuration."
"With Kemp 360 Central, our customers get a nice overview of their Kemp products and an easy way to upgrade firmware on all devices from a single interface."
"The most valuable feature that I found is the load balancing feature, it is the core function of the product."
"We really like the performance of this solution."
"When you configure the listening services, you can implement a lot of security features like the Edge Security Pack that intercepts the requests and processes those before they are sent to the real servers."
"The Global WAF has saved us more than one time from unwanted traffic."
"The user interface is very easy to work with."
"The most valuable features for us are the Load Balancing and Web Application Firewall, as we have a lot of web applications."
"The solution is scalable."
"I would like them to have more flexible models."
"For integration with other AWS environments, we do some tie-ins with some autoscaling groups. This has been challenging for us. We have had issues, where when autoscaling groups scale up, there are some instances which are not showing up in the proper size. Then, those IPs would get registered with F5, but never get released. Therefore, we are ending up with a whole bunch of ghosted IPs."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would expect more integration with different platforms and more integration with the backend systems. Additionally, in the next release, I would like a more secure version."
"Its GUI could be a bit better. Other than that, it's already pretty good. We don't use it in a high-performance environment. So, we don't really care so much about too many features."
"I would like to see F-5 implement a regular routing like in other Linux-based devices. When we try and integrate in some complex networks, we have to use some additional routing scenarios from a Layer 3 perspective, then we have some problems. It would be great if this were fixed somehow."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"The price for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very high. This aspect could be improved."
"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."
"In the next release, they can introduce 360 views in the same dashboard to make it easier for users to view. The graphical information should be displayed on the dashboard."
"In the next release, Kemp should include the ability for LoadMaster to create different DNS record types."
"Third, the password history restriction needs improvement. For example, the password policy will restrict the user to always use a unique password combination. The password should not be reused for a minimum of three generations of passwords."
"Over the last several major versions, the GUI has remained virtually unchanged and still seems lacking."
"It would be very helpful to get all the http/https session logs by default in the log monitor without activating debugging mode like an apache web sever natively does"
"Some of the support documentation seems to make assumptions that the person installing or configuring is experienced with the product or concepts."
"I definitely think that the WAF can be improved."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Kemp LoadMaster 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.
