Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs Kemp LoadMaster comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Man...
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
119
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Kemp LoadMaster
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
7th
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is 15.0%, down from 16.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kemp LoadMaster is 7.5%, up from 7.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

Richard Polyak - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 21, 2022
Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community
Our primary use cases for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager are high availability for applications and SSL offload certificates F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager helps reduce our downtime for maintenance purposes. It also offers us ease of use for the deployment of certificates onto a central…
PeterForster - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 21, 2023
A highly stable and scalable load-balancing software that offers great technical support
I use Kemp LoadMaster in my company as a replacement for Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway and as a load balancer for Microsoft Exchange services in an on-premises environment. Nowadays, I use Kemp LoadMaster as an application load balancer for SQL Server, DNS servers, and different…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Secure and scalable traffic management solution for applications. Good for bigger environments."
"It is an easy way to build application policies (graphical)."
"The most valuable features of the solution are in the area of DDoS and WAF."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"The web application firewall feature is the most valuable and useful feature. It is a leading industry product when it comes to load balancing. Its user interface is very simple. There isn't a steep learning curve. When we initiate someone to F5, they start using it quickly."
"The combination of ADC and WAN is the most valuable feature."
"The scalability of the solution depends on the sizing of the network. Generally, the scalability is quite good."
"Traffic Learning is the most valuable feature."
"We really like the performance of this solution."
"The feature that allows us to easily disconnect a server when we need and bring back online is the most valuable. It's a click of a button. This allows us to keep all systems up. We can then run updates, perform reboots whatever we need to one of the servers without taking production down."
"Security is considered the most effective feature in Kemp LoadMaster."
"There is a simplicity to the setup and configuration."
"The DNS Load Balancer makes it so that I don't have to worry about site failures."
"The security features, load balancing, built-in templates, and the easy to implement virtual IPs are great."
"Failover is seamless and our services are rock solid."
"We are most impressed with the ease of use and great support."
 

Cons

"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."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."
"The initial setup can be complex - it's quite flexible in terms of configuration, but the person configuring it needs to understand the application side, the network side, and the server."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"The analytics should provide insight into latency across various traffic routes and virtual servers."
"I wouldn't recommend the tool to small companies, considering its high price and the infrastructure needs of small businesses."
"The solution's initial setup process was quite complex. I"
"If I had to change something it would maybe be to have a little better reporting graphics that show more details in the reporting. It seems to be a little small in the graphic, and I'm not sure if possible but maybe a GUI page that one can use to monitor if any server goes down."
"The ability to see live traffic is not great and can be improved."
"The only thing I have struggled with is setting up automatic backups."
"I definitely think that the WAF can be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the stability of the solution."
"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."
"The auth website of ESP is really lacking. It’s not responsive (mobile friendly) and the procedure of changing the website is difficult. We tend to avoid using pre-auth for that reason."
"They were still in the process of development, and for example, we set it up in a cluster. So it was one logistical unit built out of two physical devices. And the expected behavior, which I know from other devices, will be formed into a logic cluster. It's that you configure one unit. Then you bring the second unit into this cluster with the already configured primary unit. So the secondary box pulls all the configured ones from its neighbor, does everything automatically, and then synchronizes with this primary neighbor. And then it works, like, one logical unit. And this didn't work with the Kemp's initially, where they caused a lot of issues when building up a cluster, so there were some specials on how to set this up. When we built or set them up for the first time and the months afterward with no new software releases, there were a couple of problems, but in the end, they worked fine. So, they developed a lot and learned from what they've responded to, what we responded to them, and what needs fixing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a little pricey. I wish the pricing was cheaper, but I wish the pricing was cheaper for everything."
"Great product for the money. But they can get really expensive, so get what meets your needs."
"When we purchased additional licenses for our other locations, we received a discount of between 20% and 25%."
"I am not aware of the exact cost of the product. However, it is expensive."
"You can buy it on a yearly basis, or you can go for a subscription. For on-premise boxes, it is just the RMA."
"I found F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) an expensive product. The costs would depend on the appliance and infrastructure size. However, my company didn't have to pay extra to use additional features."
"The cost is high for this product, so it's not suitable for small customers, e.g. those with small environments."
"It is the best solution, but that comes with an increased price."
"This is a cost-efficient product."
"The product definitely provides what the organization needs and its cost is reasonable considering the value it brings."
"Pricing for the perpetual licensing was fair to us for the features and ease of use we received."
"It has a very attractive ratio of price/performance."
"The costs for the Kemp Load Balancer solution are okay because, for a good product, you have to spend money."
"Less expensive than Citrix."
"KEMP gives away free trials for 30 days. This can be stretched if you want. During the test, you will have access to KEMP support.​"
"The price of the solution is cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
815,690 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Educational Organization
63%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
3%
Financial Services Firm
3%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
Price is an area of the tool where improvements are required. I want to see CDN capabilities in the product.
What do you like most about Kemp LoadMaster?
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...I rate the technical support a ten out of ten...The initial setup of Kemp LoadMaster is very simple.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kemp LoadMaster?
LoadMaster is cheaper than some other solutions. It has a perpetual license, so it's a one-time cost.
What needs improvement with Kemp LoadMaster?
My company is really happy with Kemp LoadMaster as a product. My company is also happy with the support we receive from Kemp LoadMaster. I want Kemp LoadMaster to provide users with better reportin...
 

Also Known As

F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
LoadMaster Load Balancer
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Kent County Council, KEMP, SMA Solar Technology AG, RT€ Player , Victrix (Quebec, Canada), Texas A&M, Macmillan Cancer Support, Cisco, Austin Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Kemp LoadMaster and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
815,690 professionals have used our research since 2012.