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."We are fond of the load balancing feature for DNS and servers."
"We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5."
"The most valuable feature is the proxy."
"The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system."
"The solution is robust and reliable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is IP Intelligence."
"What we like best about this solution is its stability. It is extremely stable."
"It helps us recognize sessions from certain IPs that are authorized to manage the application. This is a function we haven't found anywhere else."
"The performance is good."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based."
"The web interface could be better."
"The product is expensive."
"LTM would be improved with the inclusion of signature-based blocking."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"Improvements should enable customers to build a tailor-made solution in the future through a service portal."
"Its GUI could be a bit better. Other than that, it's already pretty good. We don't use it in a high-performance environment. So, we don't really care so much about too many features."
"The initial setup can take a long time."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced."
"It would be great if there was a way to gain access to the graphing data, to create custom reports. If we had a way to use the graphing data, we could use it to present certain information to our client, such as the uptime status for their service."
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 117 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 "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". 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.