We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and HAProxy 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 is stable."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"The interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"Its visibility and login mechanism are the best parts. In addition to the great visibility it has a great dashboard and an easy to configure graphic user interface, a beautiful GUI."
"The friendly user interface is valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution for my organization is its UI since it allows us to see the clusters while providing a very specific and good overall understanding."
"The WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"What's most valuable in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its deployment capability, the ability to deploy in a dispersed service, with the service engines that can disperse and have a single control plane that can control the load balancing services across any available platform, wherever needed. The analytics of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and flexibility of deployment are its most valuable features and the reasons why many people buy it."
"We did not need technical support because the documentation is good."
"Reliability. HAProxy is the most reliable product I have ever used."
"Advanced traffic rules, including stick tables and ACLs, which allow me to shape traffic while it's load balanced."
"I estimate that this product has saved our company hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in possible downtime from previous load balancers. We make a lot of our money from online sales, so it is critical to have 99.9% uptime."
"We were able to use HAProxy for round robin with our databases, or for a centralized TCP connection in one host."
"The most valuable thing for me is TCP/IP Layer 4 stuff you can do with HAProxy. You can go down to the protocol level and make decisions on something."
"We use it as a load balancer for our application servers."
"The solution is user-friendly and efficient."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"One struggle with Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is its integration with other VMware products. Integration could be improved in the solution so that you have a more unified control plane with it and other data center security and networking products that VMware sells. There has been a bit of a lag on the roadmap of new features that have come out there recently, but better interoperability with the hyperscale environments such as the AWS, Azure, GCPs of the world, and simpler deployment and interoperability with those existing tools, are areas that are receiving attention and could use additional attention today. These are the areas for improvement in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"Maybe HAProxy could be more modular."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"The visibility could be improved."
"It needs proper HTTP/2 support."
"HAProxy is very weak in the logging and monitoring part and requires improvement."
"The basic clustering is not usable in our very specific setup. The clustering is mainly a configuration replication and is great in a case of active-passive usage. In the case of an active-active (or with more than two nodes) where the configuration is not fully identical, it cannot be used as-is."
"Dynamic update API. More things should be possible to be configured during runtime."
"There is no standardized document available. So, any individual has to work from scratch to work it out. If some standard deployment details are available, it would be helpful for people while deploying it. There should be more documentation on the standard deployment."
More Avi Networks Software Load Balancer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is ranked 9th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 8 reviews while HAProxy is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 41 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while HAProxy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer writes "Easy to set up and has good integration into the host environment but needs better third party integration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HAProxy writes "Useful for for small and quick load-balancing tasks". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, NGINX Plus, Radware Alteon and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas HAProxy is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, Kemp LoadMaster, Citrix NetScaler and Traefik Enterprise. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. HAProxy 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.