Kemp LoadMaster vs. NGINX

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Kemp LoadMaster
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
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 LoadMasterNGINX
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 LoadMasterNGINX
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
YesYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeOptional
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Kemp LoadMasterNGINX
Considered Both Products
Kemp LoadMaster
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
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
[Kemp LoadMaster is more] stable and [has] better pricing.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
I was only a user on the other products.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
LoadMaster has better support. More templates can be downloaded from the support website.

Chose Kemp LoadMaster
The ease of use and the performance of Kemp LoadMaster have exceed the Citrix product by leaps and bounds.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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 …
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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 …
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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 …
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
Kemp LoadMaster does exactly the same and performs extremely well. Also, it's much easier to use and manage.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
Radware Alteon, F5 BIG-IP, Citrix ADC (formerly NetScaler ADC) and FortiADC
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
Price and ease of use are much better than Citrix ADC. The CPU and memory utilization is lower and the licensing is much better.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
We selected Kemp due to the low cost and ease of use compared to F5.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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 …
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
Kemp [LoadMaster] was the first load-balancer we looked at, and it provided a good price/performance balance for us.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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 …
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
Kemp has an ease of deployment with tech support that is second to none.
Chose Kemp LoadMaster
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 …
NGINX
Chose NGINX
NGINX is more expensive than HA Proxy.
Chose NGINX
The support and ability to provide near zero downtime for changes is a winner. The lightweight engine also helps reduce cost.
Chose NGINX
Apache HTTP Server, Apache Tomcat and Microsoft IIS
Chose NGINX
Easy to Install and configure.
Pick the configuration dynamically without restarting
All the configurations at one place
Chose NGINX
NGINX is faster to deploy and it has minimal setup needs for our POCs over Apache Tomcat
Chose NGINX
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.
Chose NGINX
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.
Chose NGINX
It is like comparing a formula 1 car against a regular street car in terms of performance or installation simplicity
Chose NGINX
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.
Chose NGINX
Imperva Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Chose NGINX
NGINX is more stable and scaleable than Imperva Application Delivery.
Chose NGINX
NGINX is faster and easier to configure. It has better reverse proxy features which is much easy to configure.
Chose NGINX
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.
Chose NGINX
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] …
Chose NGINX
Nginx is much more lightweight than apache HTTP.
Chose 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 …
Chose NGINX
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 …
Chose NGINX
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 …
Chose NGINX
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 …
Chose NGINX
Nginx is way easier to configure and runs better than Microsoft’s offering, in my opinion, and I’ll take it over Apache for its simplicity.
Features
Kemp LoadMasterNGINX
Application Servers
Comparison of Application Servers features of Product A and Product B
Kemp LoadMaster
-
Ratings
NGINX
7.8
Ratings
2% below category average
IDE support00 Ratings7.20 Ratings
Security management00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Administration and management00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Application server performance00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Installation00 Ratings9.70 Ratings
Open-source standards compliance00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Kemp LoadMasterNGINX
Small Businesses
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Apache HTTP Server
Apache HTTP Server
Score 8.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat
Score 7.9 out of 10
Enterprises
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat
Score 7.9 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Kemp LoadMasterNGINX
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.8
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.6
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.8
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Configurability
8.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Kemp LoadMasterNGINX
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Pros
  • Provisioning of Virtual Services to Real IP'ed internal systems.
  • Detailed logging facilitating rapid and easy Root Cause Analysis of issues.
  • Extensive Online community resources and excellent customer support for issues.
  • Simple, effective and intuitive UI design.
  • Effortless manual failover/failback and upgrading procedures.
  • Provided meticulously detailed upgrade-in-place documentation for transitioning to new hardware
  • Pursued Root Cause possibilities of unforeseen upgrade issue/misconfiguration scenarios
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
  • 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
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
I'm very pleased with the support I've received as well as the quality of the product.
Read full review
Great value for the product
Read full review
Usability
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
The installation was straight forward. Once i installed it, their technical support team helped me with configuration
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
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.
Read full review
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
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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.
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
ScreenShots

NGINX Screenshots

Screenshot of Overview of the NGINX Application PlatformScreenshot of NGINX Controller - MonitoringScreenshot of NGINX Controller - Configuration