My 7 Picks For The Best Load Balancing Software

Your website experiences a surge of traffic during a peak business hour. That's great, right? But, without effective load balancing, your servers could buckle under the pressure, leading to slowdowns or even crashes. As an IT professional, you know how crucial it is to maintain smooth performance—any disruption can not only frustrate users but also impact your business’s bottom line.

That’s where the best load balancing software comes in. These tools distribute incoming traffic across multiple servers, ensuring no single system bears the entire load. By keeping resources balanced, they improve speed, reliability, and overall performance.

As an SEO content specialist, I’ve spent the past year exploring various tools that help businesses optimize their IT infrastructure. Load balancing software stood out to me because of its impact on network stability and efficiency.

If you’re looking to improve performance, redundancy, or reliability, this guide will help you find the right tool for your needs. Let’s dive in!

My top 7 best load balancing software recommendations for 2025

When I first explored IT infrastructure, I was fascinated by how businesses keep their applications running smoothly under heavy loads. The best load balancing software turned out to be a key player, making websites, apps, and networks more resilient and scalable.

Evaluating these tools gave me firsthand experience in how different solutions handle network traffic and optimize performance. I soon realized that there are several types of load balancing software, each suited to different needs:

• Global load balancers distribute traffic across multiple data centers worldwide.
• Cloud load balancers manage traffic in cloud environments, ensuring scalability.
• DNS load balancers direct traffic at the domain level for redundancy and performance.
• Application load balancers optimize traffic at the application layer for smarter routing.
• Network load balancers distribute lower-level traffic for high-speed performance.

The global load balancer market is projected to grow from $7.09 billion in 2025 to $19.40 billion by 2033, at a CAGR of 13.40% during the forecast period.

In this article, I’ll share my personal picks for the best load balancing software in 2025. The list includes a mix of different types of load-balancing software. I’ll highlight what makes them stand out and how they improve reliability. Pick the one that best aligns with your individual or business needs. 

What makes load balancing software worth the investment: My opinion

• Round-robin: This method evenly distributes incoming traffic to all available servers in a rotation, ensuring that no single server is overwhelmed.
• Least connections: The system should route traffic to the server with the fewest active connections, helping to balance the load based on server utilization rather than a simple round-robin approach.
• Weighted round robin: I look for flexibility in adjusting the number of requests each server should handle based on its capacity. This method ensures more powerful servers take on a larger share of the traffic.
• IP hash: This method ensures session persistence by hashing the client’s IP address, directing repeated requests from the same client to the same server. This is useful for applications that require session affinity (sticky sessions) for managing user state.
• Latency-based routing: This advanced algorithm routes traffic based on the server with the lowest response time, ensuring faster content delivery.

• Web Application Firewall (WAF) integration to protect against common vulnerabilities and threats such as SQL injection or XSS attacks.
• DDoS protection to mitigate large-scale attacks aimed at overwhelming the servers.
• Traffic encryption to ensure that sensitive data is protected during transit, even if the network is compromised.
• Access control and authentication features to restrict which IP addresses or users can access specific resources behind the load balancer.

The list below contains genuine user reviews from our best load balancing software category page. To qualify for inclusion in the category, a product must:

• Monitor incoming network traffic and distribute it across multiple servers using algorithms like round-robin, least connections, random distribution, or IP hash
• Scale workloads dynamically to accommodate fluctuating traffic demands, ensuring efficient use of resources and consistent performance
• Continuously monitor server status to detect failures or underperformance and reroute traffic to available servers to maintain uninterrupted service
• Provide failover mechanisms to sustain operations by redirecting traffic during server outages or unexpected failures
• Support secure data transmission with secure sockets layer(SSL)/transport layer security (TLS) termination or seamless integration with external security tools to ensure robust encryption and decryption processes
• Manage backend server pools with the ability to dynamically add or remove servers as needed
• Perform basic server health checks to ensure traffic is only routed to operational servers

This data has been pulled from G2 in 2025. Some reviews have been edited for clarity.

1. HAProxy: Best for high performance and low latency

Based on my review of G2 user feedback, HAProxy is often praised for its ability to act as a fast reverse proxy for both TCP and HTTP-based applications. G2 users frequently highlight this feature as a major strength, as it allows for efficient handling of diverse network traffic across various applications. This capability ensures that users can manage network demands effectively, regardless of the type of traffic they’re dealing with.

Many G2 reviewers also emphasize the value of Layer 4 and Layer 7 load balancing, which enables traffic distribution based on both IP addresses and ports (Layer 4) and application-specific data, such as URLs or HTTP headers (Layer 7). This flexibility is frequently appreciated by users who need tailored traffic management for complex infrastructure setups. According to G2 Data, 89% of users appreciate its configurable rules to control requests, protocols, and policies. 

A commonly appreciated element in G2 reviews is the smooth setup process. Users regularly mention how easy it is to integrate HAProxy with various Linux distributions and cloud platforms. This seamless deployment experience, without compatibility issues, seems to be a standout feature, especially when setting up HAProxy in different environments, from on-premise servers to cloud-based solutions.

Another feature that often gets praise from users is HAProxy’s customization options. According to feedback, the tool's flexibility enables users to adjust configurations to meet specific needs, whether optimizing performance, enhancing security, or fine-tuning routing. This adaptability is crucial for users managing unique network environments and looking for tailored solutions to their infrastructure needs.

From what I’ve seen, advanced request routing is another standout capability. Many G2 users mention the ability to direct traffic based on custom rules, which is particularly useful when managing multiple services or instances of the same application. This feature, combined with health checks, ensures that backend servers are consistently monitored, preventing downtime or service issues in the event of server failures.

However, according to feedback I gathered from G2 users, TCP logging can be an area that requires extra attention. Many reviewers mentioned some challenges with syncing logs to the fusion control plane. While the integration process may take a bit more effort than expected, it still provides visibility into critical network processes once configured properly, supporting thorough troubleshooting and performance analysis.

Another aspect to note is HAProxy’s custom configuration language. Some users found the syntax less intuitive, especially without prior experience. While text-file configurations may feel cumbersome compared to graphical interfaces, they offer precise control over setup and behavior, which can be a major advantage for experienced users who want fine-grained management.

Lastly, HAProxy does have limitations regarding service mesh features. Users have pointed out that native tools for managing network topologies in Kubernetes are lacking, which may make it less suitable for large-scale containerized environments. Nevertheless, for many setups, HAProxy still delivers reliable performance and can be integrated with additional tooling to extend its capabilities.

What I dislike about HAProxy:

• From my experience, TCP logging can require extra attention. While it eventually provides visibility into critical network processes, many G2 reviewers noted challenges with syncing logs to the Fusion control plane, making the setup somewhat more cumbersome than expected.
• I also found HAProxy’s custom configuration language tricky at first. Although it allows precise control once you get the hang of it, several G2 users mentioned that the syntax isn’t intuitive, especially for those without prior experience, which can slow down initial configuration.

What G2 users dislike about HAProxy:

"We recently encountered an issue where the server directives only cached a single IP from the load balancer. It would be helpful to make the documentation a bit more intuitive to avoid such issues in the future."

- HAProxy Review, Rahul T.

2. Progress Kemp LoadMaster: Best for adaptive load balancing and security

Progress Kemp LoadMaster is a standout feature of Progress Kemp LoadMaster. G2 users often highlight this capability, appreciating how it streamlines the application delivery infrastructure by reducing the need to switch between multiple management tools. This centralized approach is frequently praised for making system control more efficient, particularly for users managing complex environments with various load-balancing needs.

Many users also mention the real-time alerts as a crucial feature. From what I’ve seen in reviews, these alerts are highly valued for quickly notifying users of any performance issues, security threats, or capacity constraints. Immediate notifications enable quick action, which many users find essential for preventing disruptions and ensuring seamless application delivery.

I frequently see G2 reviewers highlight the intelligent analytics and reporting tools within LoadMaster. These tools are often described as invaluable for gaining deep insights into application delivery performance and infrastructure utilization. Users appreciate the data-driven approach, which enables them to assess system performance and identify areas for improvement, ultimately contributing to better overall management.

However, I’ve come across some feedback around the initial configuration process. Many G2 users mention that setting up LoadMaster can feel complex, especially without extensive technical knowledge. The setup involves configuring network settings, licensing, and system parameters. While this may require assistance from an engineer, it also allows for precise control and a tailored environment once completed.

Another point I noticed is the learning curve. Several users shared that the tool’s terminology and feature structure aren’t immediately intuitive, even for those with engineering backgrounds. While it may take some time to become fully familiar with the system, this process ensures that users gain a deeper understanding of its capabilities, which can be very beneficial in the long run.

While the documentation is generally helpful, some G2 users pointed out an occasional lack of clarity. Explanations can sometimes feel ambiguous, which may require additional support. At the same time, the documentation provides comprehensive guidance that helps users troubleshoot the most common issues effectively once they are accustomed to the system.

Finally, I observed that sorting filters have some limitations. Many users noted that the available options may not be sufficient for very large datasets. However, the tool still offers essential filtering and sorting capabilities, and users can often work around these limitations to manage and analyze data efficiently.

What I dislike about Progress Kemp LoadMaster:

• I noticed that setting up LoadMaster can feel complex without strong technical knowledge. While the setup allows for precise control once completed, many G2 reviewers pointed out that configuring network settings, licensing, and system parameters can be daunting for new users.
• I also found the tool’s terminology and feature structure a bit unintuitive at first. Although spending time learning it gives a deeper understanding of its capabilities, several G2 users shared that the initial learning curve can slow down adoption, even for those with engineering experience.

What G2 users dislike about Progress Kemp LoadMaster:

"Writing WAF exception rules can be cumbersome, and integrating SSL certificates with certain cloud environments may present challenges."

- Progress Kemp LoadMaster Review, Verified User in Financial Services

3. Cloudflare Application Security and Performance: Best for global load balancing

What I dislike about Cloudflare Application Security and Performance:

• I noticed a slight increase in latency when routing traffic through Cloudflare’s servers. While it still delivers reliable performance, several G2 reviewers mentioned that high-traffic periods can sometimes slow load times, which may be noticeable depending on the infrastructure in use.
• I also found the SSL configuration to require extra care. Although proper setup ensures secure traffic encryption, some G2 users have pointed out that missteps can disrupt existing networks, making initial configuration somewhat challenging.

What G2 users dislike about Cloudflare Application Security and Performance:

"One concern is increased latency, as your website's traffic passes through their servers, which may result in slightly slower load times. Additionally, entrusting Cloudflare with your website's data raises data privacy concerns despite its strong security measures. Cloudflare's caching practices can also limit your control over content management, potentially leading to unexpected issues with dynamic content. Furthermore, relying on a third-party service like Cloudflare means that any downtime or server-related issues on their part could impact your site's availability. However, these drawbacks vary in significance depending on your specific website or business needs."

- Cloudflare Application Security and Performance Review, Chandra Shekhar T.

4. F5 NGINX Ingress Controller: Best for Kubernetes environments

F5 NGINX Ingress Controller earns praise for its strong combination of performance and security, which many users say meets the high demands of modern applications. G2 reviewers especially appreciate how the tool integrates seamlessly with Kubernetes environments while offering advanced traffic management capabilities.

One standout feature often highlighted in G2 reviews is the DevOps-friendly distributed cloud DNS load balancer. Users note that it consistently delivers high performance and global resiliency, enabling seamless application operations across multiple clouds, geographies, and availability zones. This has been particularly valuable for organizations with globally distributed workloads.

Many G2 users also commend the tool’s geolocation-based load balancing, which ensures a high-quality, consistent user experience across different regions. According to reviewers, this capability helps optimize application delivery by directing users to the most suitable resources based on their location, thereby improving speed and reducing latency.

Another commonly praised element is the global Anycast network. G2 feedback highlights how this feature enables fast, efficient routing by directing client requests to the nearest available application instance. This plays a critical role in ensuring minimal latency and high performance, especially for applications with large, geographically diverse user bases.

Security is another strong point, according to many users on G2. The integrated WAF, DDoS mitigation, API security, and bot detection capabilities receive frequent positive mentions. Users find that these layers of protection work well together, providing robust security and helping reduce vulnerability to external attacks.

A relatively new feature that has been catching users' attention is the AI assistant in the F5 Distributed Cloud Console. While still early in development, G2 reviewers are optimistic about its future. Some note that it's beginning to offer helpful insights and could eventually become a valuable asset for simplifying complex configurations and management workflows.

That said, not all feedback is glowing. A common point I noticed in G2 reviews is around community support and documentation. Several users mentioned that finding detailed or real-world use cases online can be challenging, which may make troubleshooting or customizing configurations a bit more time-consuming. Even so, the tool provides solid guidance through its official resources, helping most users get up to speed effectively.

Another aspect some G2 users highlighted is the need to manually create WAF-like components. While this adds setup effort, it also allows experienced professionals to tailor security features precisely to their needs. For those less familiar with application security or NGINX practices, this may take some additional learning, but it ultimately enables greater flexibility and control.

Finally, G2 reviewers often note that the initial setup can be overwhelming, particularly for users new to Kubernetes or ingress controllers. While the tool’s powerful feature set requires a learning curve, investing the time upfront provides strong long-term benefits and robust management capabilities for teams of all sizes.

What I dislike about F5 NGINX Ingress Controller:

• I've noticed that community support and documentation can be somewhat limited. While the official resources are helpful, several G2 reviewers noted that finding detailed or real-world use cases online can be challenging, which in turn makes troubleshooting or customizing configurations more time-consuming.
• I also found that manually creating WAF-like components adds extra setup effort. Although this allows precise security customization, many G2 users highlighted that it can be tricky for those less familiar with application security or NGINX practices, requiring some additional learning.

What G2 users dislike about F5 NGINX Ingress Controller:

"It has limited community-driven support and documentation, and there are fewer use cases available online."

- F5 NGINX Ingress Controller Review, Shubham S.

5. Azure Application Gateway: Best for Layer 7 load balancing and intelligent routing

Azure Application Gateway is often appreciated for its versatile load-balancing options. Users highlight the ability to distribute traffic based on URL paths, HTTP headers, and cookies as a major benefit, especially for managing complex web applications with varying routing needs. This level of control helps ensure smoother delivery of services across diverse environments.

A commonly praised capability in reviews is Layer 7 load balancing. Many G2 users highlight how advanced routing at the application layer enables traffic distribution based on specific attributes. According to G2 Data, 94% users gain value from its application layer controls to manage requests, protocols, and policies. 11

One feature that I see getting a lot of praise is the built-in web application firewall (WAF). According to several reviewers, the integrated WAF adds a strong security layer by protecting applications from vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. Users appreciate that this feature is embedded directly into the gateway, eliminating the need for separate tools to secure their web apps.

Across multiple G2 reviews, the SSL termination feature stands out for its role in offloading encryption tasks from backend servers. This improves server performance and ensures smoother, faster communication between users and applications. Many users find this especially useful when scaling applications or handling secure traffic more efficiently.

Another commonly highlighted benefit is session affinity. Users frequently mention that maintaining session consistency across requests enhances the stability of applications, particularly those that require session persistence. This feature ensures that users stay connected to the same backend instance, improving the user experience for session-dependent services.

According to feedback I gathered from G2 users, the URL-based routing is also widely appreciated. It gives users granular control by enabling traffic direction to specific backend pools based on URL paths. This routing flexibility is especially beneficial for applications with multiple services or microservice structures.

However, I’ve noticed that G2 users often mention setup complexity as a consideration. While the platform is powerful, the configuration process can feel overwhelming for some. Many users rely heavily on documentation and support, but once familiar with the system, the setup experience becomes more manageable and allows teams to leverage the platform’s full capabilities.

Another point raised in reviews is customization. Some users would like more flexibility in tuning certain settings. While the tool already provides a robust set of features, having additional configuration options could make it easier to adapt to specific business or infrastructure needs, enhancing overall usability.

I’ve also read multiple reviewers discuss header-based routing. The lack of native support for this feature sometimes requires workarounds using other tools. Although these workarounds are functional, direct support for header-based routing would simplify implementation and reduce complexity.

Finally, some G2 users note gateway-level caching for sticky sessions as an area for improvement. While session affinity works adequately, caching at the gateway level could enhance efficiency under heavy traffic. Adding this feature would likely improve consistency and responsiveness for high-volume applications.

What I dislike about Azure Application Gateway:

• I noticed that setup complexity can be a challenge. While the platform is powerful and the documentation is helpful, many G2 users mentioned that configuring the system can initially feel overwhelming, making the learning curve steeper than expected.
• I also found that customization options could be more flexible. Although the tool already offers robust features, several G2 reviewers highlighted that additional configuration settings would make it easier to adapt the platform to specific business or infrastructure needs.

What G2 users dislike about Azure Application Gateway:

"Azure Application Gateway is not very user-friendly and requires some expertise to configure. In comparison, the AWS Application Load Balancer is much easier for beginners to set up. Additionally, it only supports the HTTP protocol, so it can’t be used for other applications, such as an SMTP server. Another limitation is that it can only be used with applications hosted within the Azure ecosystem."

- Azure Application Gateway Review, Dheeraj B.

6. Akamai Connected Cloud: Best for global load and node balancing

Akamai Connected Cloud is recognized for delivering robust edge and cloud computing capabilities, particularly in the areas of load balancing and application availability. The built-in load balancer is one feature that I see getting a lot of praise. Based on G2 user reviews, many appreciate being able to set up a load-balanced web server without requiring additional infrastructure. This helps simplify operations and allows teams to prioritize application performance over backend configuration.

Session affinity is another capability that gets called out positively. Across multiple reviews, users highlight how this feature consistently routes users to the same origin server during normal operations. This is especially useful for high-traffic or complex applications where persistence is critical to delivering a seamless user experience.

Instant failover to edge backups is often cited as a key advantage. From what I’ve gathered, users value how the system automatically redirects traffic to backup origins during outages. This helps maintain uptime and provides flexibility during maintenance or updates without affecting end users.

Real-time traffic and server monitoring also receive praise. According to feedback I gathered from G2 users, the dashboard offers visibility into live traffic patterns and CPU usage, making it easier to monitor server health and proactively address issues before they escalate.

That said, the user interface and onboarding experience are areas where I’ve noticed some feedback from G2 users. The environment isn’t always beginner-friendly, and navigating advanced settings can feel overwhelming for those with limited server management experience. At the same time, the interface provides robust control and flexibility once users become familiar with it.

When it comes to performance, data storage speed has been a point of consideration. Several reviewers mentioned occasional delays in storing and retrieving large volumes of data. While this could be a factor for applications requiring very fast access, the system generally handles typical workloads reliably.

Certificate management is another area highlighted by users. Some noted that the lack of multiple certificate support under a single load balancer can increase setup complexity. However, this approach still ensures secure and organized certificate handling, and workarounds or additional instances can address specific multi-domain requirements.

Examining broader review trends, global server coverage appears to be a key consideration. Users pointed out gaps in infrastructure across certain regions, which can affect latency and service consistency. Even so, the platform performs well in the majority of locations and continues to expand its coverage over time.

What I dislike about Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode):

• I noticed that the user interface and onboarding experience can be overwhelming at first. While it eventually provides robust control and flexibility, several G2 users mentioned that beginners or those with limited server management experience may find navigating advanced settings challenging.
• I also found data storage speed to be a point of consideration. Although the system generally handles typical workloads reliably, multiple G2 reviewers noted occasional delays when storing or retrieving large volumes of data, which could impact applications requiring very fast access.

What G2 users dislike about Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode):

"The environment is not very user-friendly, which can create complications for new users. Additionally, it tends to be slow when storing large amounts of data and does not connect directly to a computer."

- Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode) Review, Suraj S.

7. Google Cloud Load Balancing: Best for DNS-based global load balancing and autoscaling

Google Cloud Load Balancing stands out in reviews for its versatility and global distribution capabilities. From what I’ve gathered, users are consistently impressed with how well it routes traffic across multiple instances to ensure availability and reliability at scale.

A commonly appreciated element is support for multiple load balancing protocols. I frequently see G2 reviewers highlight the flexibility to choose from HTTP(S), TCP, SSL, and UDP options, allowing teams to meet a variety of application needs with a single platform.

Flexible deployment options are another strength users call out. According to feedback I reviewed, the ability to implement external and internal load balancing configurations for TCP, UDP, and HTTP(S) traffic gives teams the adaptability they need across different infrastructures and scenarios.

One standout capability, according to users, is the platform's ability to manage heavy traffic loads. Reviewers frequently mention that their applications stayed responsive during traffic surges thanks to smart distribution across regional resources, which also helped reduce latency and improve performance for end users.

There’s a lot of love for auto-scaling support. Based on G2 feedback, users find the automatic resource adjustment in response to changing demand extremely useful, especially since it minimizes the need for manual monitoring and keeps performance steady.

Another feature that gets recognition is the platform’s integration with Google Cloud Monitoring. G2 reviewers say this makes it easier to track performance, identify potential issues early, and maintain visibility into overall health without relying on external tools.

That said, configuring advanced load balancing rules is a point to consider. I’ve seen some users express frustration with the complexity of setting up custom health checks or routing policies. While the documentation assumes a higher level of technical expertise, it still provides thorough guidance to help users implement these advanced configurations successfully

Despite a generally intuitive admin interface, some users noted that the lack of guidance for complex setups can be challenging. I’ve read multiple reviews mentioning that auto-generated resource names — particularly from Google Kubernetes Engine — make it a bit harder to track clusters or services associated with specific load balancers. Even so, the interface supports efficient management once users become familiar with its structure.

I’ve also noticed feedback regarding advanced configuration capabilities. Some users reported needing workarounds for features like detailed header-based routing or granular SSL control. While these features aren’t fully supported out of the box, the platform still provides flexible tools that allow for precise control with a minimal amount of extra setup effort.

What I dislike about Google Cloud Load Balancing:

• I noticed that configuring advanced load balancing rules can be complex. While the documentation is thorough, several G2 users mentioned frustration with setting up custom health checks or routing policies, which can feel daunting for less-experienced users.
• I also found that auto-generated resource names can make it tricky to track clusters or services. Although the admin interface is generally intuitive, multiple G2 reviewers noted that this naming convention requires extra effort when managing specific load balancers.

What G2 users dislike about Google Cloud Load Balancing:

"Considerable IT knowledge is required, and while the admin panel is user-friendly, it’s still not enough for proper handling. Additionally, dedicated free customer support isn’t as readily available as needed."

- Google Cloud Load Balancing Review, Isabelle F.

Best load balancing software: frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Q. Which load balancing method is best?

The best load balancing method depends on your use case and the type of traffic you're handling. Common methods include round-robin, which distributes requests evenly; least connections, which sends traffic to the server with the fewest active connections; and IP hash, which routes traffic based on the client's IP address. For high-traffic applications, adaptive load balancing or methods with session persistence may offer better performance.

Q. What is DNS Load balancing?

DNS load balancing uses the Domain Name System (DNS) to distribute client requests across multiple servers. When a client makes a request, the DNS server responds with the IP address of one of the available servers, typically based on factors like availability or geographic location. 

Q. Which is better, load balancing or failover?

Load balancing distributes traffic across multiple servers to optimize performance and prevent overloading a single server. Failover provides backup servers that automatically take over in the event of the primary server's failure. The choice depends on whether your priority is performance optimization (load balancing) or redundancy (failover).

Q. Which is the best free load balancing software?

HAProxy is one of the best free load-balancing solutions available. It’s an open-source, high-performance software that supports various load balancing algorithms and offers advanced features, including SSL termination and health checks. Explore other free load-balancing software. 

Q. What is the difference between an API gateway and a load balancer?

An API gateway serves as the entry point for API requests, handling tasks such as routing, authentication, rate limiting, and load balancing. It often includes features specific to API management, such as monitoring and security. A load balancer, on the other hand, focuses solely on distributing incoming traffic across multiple servers to ensure no single server is overwhelmed.

Stop your servers from throwing a tantrum!

After evaluating various load balancing software, I’ve realized that the right choice can make all the difference.

Without it, you risk experiencing slow performance, service outages, or even complete infrastructure failure. Imagine trying to keep everything running smoothly with a broken GPS — servers just won’t know where to go, and it’s a complete mess.

But with the right tool, everything flows effortlessly, traffic is distributed evenly, and your team can focus on more important tasks instead of scrambling to fix avoidable issues.

So, choose wisely! If you don’t, you might end up with a system that’s more of a headache than help, and no one wants to be the IT person who has to explain why everything crashed.

Learn more about virtual private servers and whether they are the right choice to storing resources.