We performed a comparison between Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and NGINX Plus 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 interface and software features are the most valuable aspects of this solution."
"The solution has simplified our network infrastructure management."
"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."
"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."
"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 WAF - the web application firewall itself - is great."
"Using NGINX Plus for web traffic distribution is fantastic. It offers performance similar to physical load balancers but with added flexibility."
"Application Gateway with application-level firewall tool and load distributor and balancer (also serves for A/B testing)."
"I find the solution’s community support and documentation most valuable. Compared to HAProxy, have found a lot of documentation and community support on Quora. If you would be asking me as a developer whether to choose this product, I would recommend this since it has good community support, documentation, and signature updates. The configuration of HAProxy is also very tedious. However, NGINX’s configuration is very simple."
"NGINX works much better than HAProxy in our current hardware and architecture for HTTP/HTTPS load balancing. "
"It performs very well. That's one of the primary reasons we use NGINX."
"I think installation only took a couple of minutes — no more than 10 minutes."
"Zero Downtime has always been a strength in recommending infrastructure web services. NGINX allows me to execute such infrastructure with less complications and the ability to switch from server to server easily."
"The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions."
"The network analytics and monitoring features are not effective."
"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 initial setup is a bit complex."
"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."
"Avi Networks Software Load Balancer needs to improve its documentation."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing and documentation need improvement. We have had problems getting the documents."
"IDS and IPS sites need to be more progressive."
"It doesn't match the development structure or user community of our existing product. It pales in comparison to that."
"The scalability could be improved."
"The solution must improve its performance."
"Lack of a feature to print data on the terminal for verification of network traffic during debugging and testing."
"The KPI should be more focused on load balancing and the latency in application calling from the end system."
"The scaling should be built into the software rather than configured from an outside source."
"The solution needs to be easier to setup and deploy."
"I would like it to have a more user-friendly graphical interface."
"The user interface could be improved."
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 NGINX Plus is ranked 5th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 28 reviews. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is rated 8.2, while NGINX Plus is rated 8.8. 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 NGINX Plus writes "Quick installation and very easy to manage while doing orchestration or automation". Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Citrix NetScaler, HAProxy, Radware Alteon and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas NGINX Plus is most compared with IIS, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Loadbalancer.org. See our Avi Networks Software Load Balancer vs. NGINX Plus 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.