We performed a comparison between Barracuda Load Balancer ADC 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.
"Barracuda's technical support is good - whenever we have an issue, they immediately connect and resolve it."
"The price is very good, and it's not very expensive."
"Load-balancing is a great feature that is very easy to configure and it is always working fine."
"When the templates are used, there is not much left to configure and they just work!"
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"There is a simplicity to the setup and configuration."
"The security features are the most valuable features 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."
"We needed a Microsoft Threat Management Gateway server replacement solution for a customer and were impressed with the simplified deployment of the Kemp LoadMasters."
"Simple to install with good documentation."
"The quality of the solution's performance could be improved."
"Load Balancer ADC is competitively priced, but it's not feature-rich, and its technology is not that advanced."
"The only thing that I miss is that the TMG server was giving me live information about who is connected and what is the request about."
"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."
"Overall, the Kemp LoadMaster has been an all-rounder great product and stable. The free trial and virtual edition make it a breeze for any potential customer to give it a spin before actually deciding to put it on the infrastructure or even talk to the CFO."
"The product is really good as-is out of the box. If there is one thing I would change is to have the license file not be coupled with the MAC address of the device. This is actually not really useful in a virtual environment where if you have a single VM with KEMP LoadMaster and you have not set up static MAC Address, if you, for example, recreate the VM and just load the disk file on a new VM it will get new MAC address and the NLB will not work as it will not see a proper license."
"There is room for improvement in the stability of the solution."
"They need to improve the UI environment. Currently, it's hard to navigate and use product."
"I really don't like the way the logs are presented in the software."
"It has all types of logs and they are very detailed, but it's a little bit hard to search for a single event."
Barracuda Load Balancer ADC is ranked 14th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 3 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Barracuda Load Balancer ADC is rated 7.4, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Barracuda Load Balancer ADC writes "Cost-effective but lacking features and integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Barracuda Load Balancer ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and HAProxy, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler and Imperva DDoS. See our Barracuda Load Balancer ADC 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.
