LoadMaster from Kemp Technologies in New York is an application delivery controller.
$1,720
per year
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
NGINX, a business unit of F5 Networks, powers over 65% of the world's busiest websites and web applications. NGINX started out as an open source web server and reverse proxy, built to be faster and more efficient than Apache. Over the years, NGINX has built a suite of infrastructure software products o tackle some of the biggest challenges in managing high-transaction applications. NGINX offers a suite of products to form the core of what organizations need to create…
N/A
Pricing
Kemp LoadMaster
NGINX
Editions & Modules
VLM-500
1,720
per year
VLM-500
2,000
perpetual license
VLM-3000
3,050
per year
VLM-3000
4,000
perpetual license
VLM-MAX
7,610
per year
VLM-MAX
10,000
perpetual license
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Kemp LoadMaster
NGINX
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Kemp LoadMaster
NGINX
Considered Both Products
Kemp LoadMaster
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
Easy to use for internal services with a simple interface and easy to understand logging. It does not offer the same extent of features as the citrix ADC netscaler however it performs its function extremely well and is easily managed
We recently had some experience with AWS Application Load Balancer, and I cay for sure it's not match for Kemp Loadmaster. Rules options are limited; configuration options are not really flexible; and learning curve is much steeper.
We use Citrix ADC's in our main office to load balance hundreds of items. This was overkill for a remote office. Kemp's Loadmaster was a great fit for the use case, at a fraction of the price.
F5 [BIG-IP] has more features, but for our requirements, Kemp [LoadMaster] had all the features we needed and was a significantly more economical option.
Setup is easier and more straight forward on the Kemp. While I am a technical person and can setup HAProxy for the client's needs, it would be difficult for the client to manage the configuration themselves.
Kemp LoadMaster is a much more reliable technology compared to its competitors. The ease of use and convenience to have it set up is one of the primary reasons to have it we choose Kemp LoadMaster over their competitors. Besides the support that we get from them is also very …
We have conducted random evaluations of other product comparison data against Kemp [LoadMaster], and are very satisfied with the [Kemp] Loadmaster product reviews. We feel strongly about the product reliability, support model, and ease of use. We have complete confidence when …
LoadMaster is a bit more professional and enterprise grade than a simple open source tool that is free of charge like HAProxy. LoadMaster fares better in Windows application environments than HAProxy, and the configuration of LoadMaster is done in a more modern way through an …
Specialized product for the purpose, better support on the first call (no wait for the second level till you found the solution on your own). In addition, we wanted to separate these services from the firewalls, so the firewall can do its job better. Last but not least, none of …
Kemp LoadMaster is easier to implement and operate, all while being less expensive. Although some competitors offer more functionality, most of our customers don't need it.
The Kemp LoadMaster outshined both of our other evaluated products, mainly in speed of setup, features available, and overall cost of ownership. In the case of the Azure LB it wasn't going to work well for our on Premise servers. The Barracuda was unreliable and difficult to …
Of the solutions that we reviewed and evaluated, Kemp LoadMaster was the highest performing and easiest to maintain. We got it configured faster than the alternatives, it was easier to operate, and it required less work to support. Our practical tests also showed that it …
How does it compare? We use Apache ATP server and we also use Tom Cat also owned by Apache, but both Apache, ATP, and MKA. They are relatively older than GX and so they're one problem for Apache and MKA they need more power, more memory, and more space.
NGINX have higher market share which obviously show to us it is the preferred choice of most of the customers. Both of platform competes in the Web and Application server areas, but due the security features of NGINX be more flexible this in my opinion makes more sense.
Apache is a market leader but NGINX is new and has new features. Lightweight and can handle static requests. We use EC2 and I believe NGINX is more suited when it comes to scalability.
MS IIS and Apache HTTP server both provide many similar services. However the configuration simplicity, and performance characteristics helped us choose NGINX above the other 2 products.
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] …
NGINX Stacks up at the top for me because it's fast, reliable, and secure and apache is also usable but not so good in comparison to NGINX and since I and my organization have switched to NGINX I also don't want to look back at apache as NGINX works the best for our use case …
NGINX's footprint is much smaller than Apache, and it's great for serving up static content. The URL rewriting was not as familiar as Apache, but just as powerful once configured correctly. As a load balancer, it's much more affordable than Citrix ADC. We used the load …
Compared to Apache, NGINX is much lighter on resource consumption, and also far faster as a server, serving static content over twice as fast in most benchmark tests. NGINX doesn't offer as much potential configuration and customization as Apache, however, so if these advanced …
Nginx's cache mechanism is better than Apache and HAproxy. Also Nginx is very light weight and works for multiple sites with much less work. i.e. As front end proxy server configuration is very easy as compared to other applications. Apache sometimes crashes and is not able to …
Loadmaster is very powerful and flexible load balancer. Variety of options allows to create a complex network of rules and routes. During our website rollout Loadmaster allowed us to run multiple generations of the website simultaneously and seamlessly by doing the content switching on the fly. Powerful API allows easy integration into any development lifecycle.
Nginx is well suited for serving any static content - whether that be images, JS files, HTML files, CSS files, videos, etc. If you have a high-traffic website, Nginx will be a great fit because it handles large number of requests extremely efficiently. Nginx has full support on Unix systems, but only has limited support on Microsoft Windows machines.
Straight-forward configuration format that users of all skill levels can learn, and yet is powerful enough for the huge breadth of features that Nginx provides.
Massive scale right out the box. We've never had a Nginx instance overwhelmed by requests, and if we did it would be trivial to spin up more Nginx instances to handle the load.
SSL termination means that we can deliver content over HTTPS without needing our individual services to require TLS support. This saves us a lot of time and headache while keeping us secure.
Nginx is open-source and free, meaning that anyone can use it to power their services, from individual projects to billion-dollar websites.
Complexity. You really need. highly skilled IT team to manage this device. This is not a solution or appliance for SME's - medium or large enterprises only!
Bugs, during 2015-2016 we suffered from a. number of bugs that caused downtime that would not have occurred without the Kemp LM. This is especially annoying given that it was purchased to reduce downtime! During 2017 stability improved.
Costs. This is a high cost solution with high ongoing support fees. Not for those who are very cost conscious
Nginx often requires some initial configuration. It's worth doing, because you'll end up with great results, but it can be slightly daunting for someone to get started using it. Apache might have a leg up in that regard--When you install Apache, typically it's just about ready to do what you want already. But the issue with Apache is that most people skip the extensive tuning phase required after that, and with nginx it becomes more just a part of the configuration process.
Sometimes, the configuration syntax, even though it's powerful and terse, isn't the most intuitive. Luckily there's plenty of documentation about what things mean and how to accomplish certain things. There may not be much that can be done about this--to have a powerful web server, you need a powerful-enough configuration language.
The nginx brand is somewhat fragmented, and it can be confusing. There's the open source nginx web server, which I've primarily been referring to. But then there's NGINX Plus, a premium subscription-based service which works with a range of other NGINX products (NGINX WAF, NGINX Amplify, NGINX Controller). I've met a number of people who weren't very familiar with nginx, and instinctively went to nginx.com first, and from there it seems like everything costs money. It's only when they realize there's a different site, nginx.org, that they find what they went looking for.
Kemp makes it very easy to setup, configure and manage the LoadMaster without needing a lot of help from their engineers. The interface is very easy to understand and intuitive to use. We like how it is not complicated - I can easily have one of my techs login and they can figure out how to setup/configure virtual services for load balancing without needing a manual or tech support.
Front end proxy and reverse proxy of Nginx is always useful. I always prefer to Nginx in overall usability when you have application server and database or multiple application servers and single database i.e. clustered application. Nginx provides really good features and flexibility which helps the system administrator in case of troubleshooting and also from the administration perspective. Also, Nginx doesn't delay any request because of internal performance issues.
Support has been easy to deal with; I have only need[ed] to contact them a few times during setup. Once its been in place and operational, we have not need[ed] to mess with the system [which] is a huge advantage. I like system[s] that do not break and require constant attention in a production environment.
Community support is great, and they've also had a presence at conferences. Overall, there is no shortage of documentation and community support. We're currently using it to serve up some WordPress sites, and configuring NGINX for this purpose is well documented.
The Kemp LoadMaster outshined both of our other evaluated products, mainly in speed of setup, features available, and overall cost of ownership. In the case of the Azure LB it wasn't going to work well for our on Premise servers. The Barracuda was unreliable and difficult to bring online with our needed applications. With the ability to import pre-configured templates into the Kemp load balancer, we were able to have it running within the first day of ownership.
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] over alternatives
We used Kemp LoadMaster for many projects. For a lot of customers, load balancers were too expensive or too complicated before we introduced Kemp products.
It's not a overly complicated product, so we were able to train many engineers on it and have them get a certification.
When we first migrated our primary bidding environment architecture to Nginx, it was under duress due to Apache's inability to keep up when we consolidated away from an HAproxy model to a central HTTP proxy. So we even when we did not know what we were doing, we were able to make it work in a bad situation, and everyone was quite happy.
The biggest complaint I have is that I find the module compilation requirements for nginx+ rather burdensome. If we pay for Nginx+, I'd love to see then have pre-built modules for ready for each release of more modules. We are spending our own time engineering an in-house solution for module testing for nginx+ releases, which is disappointing.
I've also, as the primary Nginx person at my organization, inserted my expertise into other projects, and have saved our company lots of money getting rid of big $$$ appliances for general SSL proxying.
Speaking of Nginx replacing SSL appliances, we had an instance where we had to suddenly enable elliptic-curve SSL ciphers and our big $$$ appliances (you know who they are), were falling over. Even their SSL accelerator cards, after all, are just a few extra cores to process SSL. But in an environment of our size, we use DNS to spread the load to hundreds of frontend proxies with dozens of cores each to spread this load out, all at a lower price than ONE of the appliance pairs running Nginx. We couldn't even tell the change in load in our Nginx architecture when we enabled the ciphers.