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

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs Loadbalancer.org comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Man...
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
121
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Loadbalancer.org
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
12th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is 15.6%, down from 15.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Loadbalancer.org is 3.5%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Featured Reviews

Bonieber  Orofeo - PeerSpot reviewer
Identifying compromised traffic and securing data has been a significant advantage
One of the most beneficial features of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) ( /products/f5-big-ip-local-traffic-manager-ltm-reviews ) is its ability to identify compromised traffic and its capabilities in authentication. Additionally, the security aspect of it provides a significant advantage as it helps us secure our data, which is a major investment and benefit for us. Before using this system, we had difficulties in storing our data and managing the traffic that comes in and out.
Roger Seelaender - PeerSpot reviewer
Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised
The solution can be improved with the development of a SIP engine because it is difficult to manage SBCs. All SBCs are really tough to write rules for. If we could put this in front of an SBC to have the right rules to possibly block the traffic, that would be very helpful. The solution can also improve the relationship between Loadbalancer.org and Metaswitch, or now, Microsoft because Metaswitch was purchased by Microsoft. They both position themselves as certified but don't always talk to each other. I wish there would be closer integration between the solution and the vendors when either release new upgrades to their product line. Often we find issues on either end post upgrades.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We're able to do load balancing and global load balancing. When you marry those two products together, you can do a lot more. We're able to deliver our applications more securely and faster. It has improved our deliverability where we have more service across the shared data centers. We can intelligently reach all of those client connections across all of the servers and do it fairly quickly. It has helped improve our application delivery and performance."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"It is the perfect solution when you have high workloads in your IT environment."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot."
"The solution is easy to install. It's a straightforward process."
"iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good."
"BIG-IP can do anything. It's like a Swiss Army knife."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"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 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."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"For now, it's stable."
"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 load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
 

Cons

"Its price can be better. It is a bit expensive."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"My only point of contention would be that it is a little pricey."
"The logging features are too limited and do not give us a solid understanding of what's happening."
"Bugs are the part of program and they are fixed with every release, as with any vendor."
"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."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it."
"You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"​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."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"​I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version.​"
"Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It could be priced a little less, especially on the virtual side. It gets a bit expensive, but you get what you pay."
"It is a bit expensive product. Kemp Loadmaster is much cheaper than F5. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. It can be for one year or three years."
"Great product for the money. But they can get really expensive, so get what meets your needs."
"F5 BIG-IP can be expensive, although there are trial versions available which are helpful to find out if the solution is right for your company."
"It is cheaper than the average on the market."
"The price of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is too high."
"It is a little pricey. I wish the pricing was cheaper, but I wish the pricing was cheaper for everything."
"F5 BIG-IP is a stable solution. It is quite mature and does not have many concerns."
"The costs associated with Loadbalancer.org depends on the technology. For some, we need to pay, but others are open, so they're free."
"I love that they do not price on some arbitrary throughput rating where you are guessing at what the load balancer is going to handle."
"For now, it's stable."
"It is inexpensive, and even their “unlimited” version, the VA MAX is still far cheaper than competitors."
"It was easy to upgrade the license for unlimited clusters and servers. Pricing is fair."
"I’m not entirely sure about the rating since I'm not very technical. I haven't thoroughly compared the ratings. So, if you're asking for my impression so far, I would rate it around five out of 10."
"These guys make their pricing scheme really easy.​"
"Loadbalancer.org is based on open-source products, but it requires money for support and other activities."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Government
9%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with F5 BIG-IP?
The price needs improvement as it is quite costly.
What is your primary use case for F5 BIG-IP?
We're using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) ( /products/f5-big-ip-local-traffic-manager-ltm-reviews ) for our applications and for managing our incoming and outgoing traffic.
Do you recommend Loadbalancer.org?
Since Loadbalancer.org is an open-source solution, I would recommend this solution for smaller businesses that don’t have major scaling requirements and don’t have the budget for a commercial solut...
What do you like most about Loadbalancer.org?
Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed.
 

Also Known As

F5 BIG-IP, BIG-IP LTM, F5 ASM, Viprion, F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition , Crescendo Networks Application Delivery Controller, BIG IP
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Riken, TransUnion, Tepco Systems Administration, Daejeon University, G&T Bank, Danamon, CyberAgent Inc.
Vodafone, NASA, Mercedes, NBC, Siemens, AT&T, Barclays, Zurich, Penn State University, Fiserv, Canon, Toyota, University of Cambridge, US Army, US Navy, Ocean Spray, ASOS, Pfizer, BBC, Bacardi, Monsoon, River Island, U.S Air Force, King's College London, NHS, Ricoh, Philips, Santander, TATA Communications, Ericcson, Ross Video, Evertz, TalkTalk TV, Giacom, Rapid Host.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) vs. Loadbalancer.org and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.