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."The solution's stability is pretty good."
"In my team, we work in a very agile environment and the solutions from BIG-IP, including BIG-IP WAF, suit us well when developing and serving our applications."
"It is stable."
"The setup is pretty easy."
"The solution could improve the ease of use, the management could be simplified. Other solutions are easier to use."
"Its user interface is very easy to use on a day-to-day basis. It is very user-friendly."
"It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware."
"Initial setup is easy and pretty standard."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"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."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"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."
"With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained."
"Right now, there are a lot of products within F5's portfolio. They acquired a couple of companies like NGINX and Volterra. Some features and technologies overlapped when this acquisition occurred. They need to refine it and come up with a single, proper solution. F5 should focus more on zero trust network access (ZTNA).They should be more focused on that framework because the industry is moving towards that. Everyone is talking about SASE and zero trust."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"The solution's initial setup process was quite complex. I"
"The web interface could be better."
"The user interface of F5 BIG-IP LTM is old and could improve."
"Security and Reporting."
"The deployment can take some time because you can do a lot of configuring to meet the needs of the use cases for clients."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"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."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
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.