We performed a comparison between Kemp LoadMaster and Radware Alteon 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 most valuable feature is the load balancing and allowing for high availability of our web services."
"The configuration is really easy and the web portal is self-explanatory."
"Managing and maintaining multiple servers is done in a single place."
"The Global WAF has saved us more than one time from unwanted traffic."
"It has been functional. We don't have any outages."
"The most beneficial function of using the ADC is to ensure this resiliency."
"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."
"Using Kemp as a front-facing service appliance, it allows me to have the flexibility of swapping out real servers behind the scenes without any intervention from my network team."
"Security is one of the most valuable features that I like. It is easy to use and easy to configure."
"I like the concept of self-service, that I can do everything on my own."
"The interface is easy, it's friendly, and has good alerting."
"The solution has been very stable."
"I like the ADC feature and the global certificate feature."
"It saves us a lot of work in terms of management since it has tasks already defined automatically. That enables us to better administer our services. It is very dynamic and easy to administer."
"With Alteon, the load-balancing options are practically unlimited. We haven't had any issues with offloading, decryption, putting in cookies, or any other load-balancing features. We can check URLs, etc., on the back end for load balancing instead of running a TCP check. We're also doing some certificate stuff on there. Alteon covers all of the standard load-balancing techniques, and we employ most of them daily."
"The command line interface is simple and very user-friendly."
"In the web interface, there are a lot of settings in the different menus and it would be helpful if there were an interactive help system or tooltips to help the administrators find and configure the right settings."
"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."
"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."
"The configuration of the basic services is pretty straight forward but for more complex solutions, there needs to be better documentation or knowledge base articles."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"It would be helpful if there were a way to incorporate tooltips on the fields so that we don't have to dig through documentation."
"It lacks an officially supported, well-written SCOM Management Pack."
"Several elements of the GUI need work. For example, if you have many content switches, it’s difficult to find the ones you need. And where is the search feature?"
"Recently our team was talking about the things you can customize in Alteon and the level of programming that doing so demands. I would like to see more information on how to customize the programming and troubleshoot."
"I would like the solution to display and help visualize the reference map more easily. I would also like to better understand where queries come from and know which users are consulting the application, along with which app."
"We’d like the solution to include more security features in the standard license."
"You need to have pretty good internal knowledge of the solution."
"I would like for the load balancing to work with premier and the cloud, a mix of premium and cloud."
"The interface implementation can be improved."
"The solution could be more robust."
"Support is very important because if we get good support, we'll be able to sell and supply more numbers."
Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews while Radware Alteon is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 33 reviews. Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4, while Radware Alteon is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Radware Alteon writes "It's a good fit for a small team because the maintenance is easier and you don't need to know how to code". Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC and Citrix NetScaler, whereas Radware Alteon is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and F5 Advanced WAF. See our Kemp LoadMaster vs. Radware Alteon 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.
