"Having the right load balancing solution – which is what HAProxy is – and protection in place gives organizations peace of mind."
"It has allowed us to evenly distribute the load across a number of servers, and check their health and automatically react to errors."
"HAProxy's TCP load balancer is excellent and super stable."
"Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are very valuable."
"It solves a problem for me where I can build files, not based on the health of the check, but rather the speed of the check."
"I have found HAProxy very helpful in replicating production environment architecture in a development and testing environment."
"It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"We use it as a load balancer for our application servers."
"It is a scalable product."
"The GUI should be more responsive and show the detailed output of logs."
"HAProxy could do with some good combination integrations."
"I would like to evaluate load-balancing algorithms other than round robin and SSL offloading. Also, it would be helpful if I could logically divide the HAProxy load-balancing into multiple entities so that I would install one HA Proxy LB application which could be used for different Web servers for different applications. I am not sure if these features are available."
"The configuration should be more friendly, perhaps with a Web interface. For example, I work with the ClusterControl product for Severalnines, and we have a Web interface to deploy the HAProxy load-balancer."
"The solution can be improved by controlling TCP behavior better and mandating to clients what the expected outcome must be in order to avoid receiving contestant timeout logs."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"HAProxy could improve by making the dashboards easier to use, and better reports and administration tickets."
"There is room for improvement in HAProxy's dynamic configuration."
"The initial setup is complicated. Although Kuma has its own CLI, CTL, and they say to use their CLI, if I have to build a generic solution, my personal preference would be to use Helm or another similar solution other than Kuma. If you have your own library CLI, it becomes hard for others to adopt it. For example, if I have to write some automation, infrastructure automation, I can't just use Kuma. I have to change my code to use Kuma's CTL, which is unfair because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit with my current automation structure. I have to do something extra, something additional, which I really don't like."
HAProxy is ranked 2nd in Service Mesh with 41 reviews while Kong Mesh is ranked 3rd in Service Mesh with 1 review. HAProxy is rated 8.2, while Kong Mesh is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kong Mesh writes "Provides a unique advantage by offering a global view for all workloads and clusters within the mesh but lack of a robust community for open-source support". HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Envoy, whereas Kong Mesh is most compared with Istio, Envoy, HashiCorp Consul and Traefik Enterprise.
See our list of best Service Mesh vendors.
We monitor all Service Mesh 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.
