We performed a comparison between F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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."ASM for WAF."
"The solution has good load balancing capabilities."
"Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot."
"It is a stable product from a stable company. Recently, they have been more focused on security as well."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"Valuable features include Link Controller and Server Load Balancer."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"We have about 30,000 connections going through at any one time and it's fine, it doesn't seem to sweat. It doesn't get overloaded."
"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."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are the ease of managing the logs on the WAFs, the ease to identify break-in attempts into the network, the front-end firewall, and a more specific firewall."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"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."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"F5 could improve the rule-setting capabilities in the GUI, and they need to simplify web management. For example, the menus in the Citrix GUI are easier to navigate, with a clean structure and layout."
"The price for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is very high. This aspect could be improved."
"Needs to provide a visual interface to follow a customer's activity (from client to BIG-IP to SNAT IP to the chosen server, then back). Today, we are still performing packet captures."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"Internet and cloud support could be improved."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will are challenging for us."
"The user interface could be improved in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager."
"The synchronization does works fairly well. However, if I were to make changes, I would make it easier to start the sync process."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."
"If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"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."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
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 Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.
