"The ease of use of the configuration, and great documentation, are the most valuable features for us."
"It has allowed us to evenly distribute the load across a number of servers, and check their health and automatically react to errors."
"The most important features would be the load-balancing of HTTP and TCP requests, according to multiple LB-algorithms (busyness, weighted-busyness, round robin, traffic, etc). Another important feature that we cannot live without is the username/passwd authentication for legacy systems that had none."
"We don't have a problem with the user interface. it's good."
"Stability is number one."
"It reduced the load on our main load balancers."
"It improves our scalability and responsiveness services to meet our demanding customer requirements."
"The VRRP redundancy is also a mission-critical feature that works seamlessly. I can bring down a server live with minimal downtime because of this."
"It is a scalable product."
"I would like to see better search handling, and a user interface, with a complete functional graphical unit"
"There are three main areas to improve: 1) Make remote management more modern by adding API. 2) Propose a general HA solution for HAProxy (no I'm using keepalived for this). 3) Thread option should be a bit more stable."
"Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved."
"The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic."
"We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs."
"The only area that I can see needing improvement is the management interface, since it is pretty much all through the CLI or configuration. A GUI/web interface could be helpful for users who are not as experienced in the Linux shell. However, HAProxy does have another product that we evaluated called ALOHA, which has a web front-end, but we found it did not meet our needs."
"If nbproc = 2, you will have two processes of HAProxy running. However, the stats of HAProxy will not be aggregated, meaning you don't really know the collective status in a single point of view."
"The visibility could be improved."
"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.
