Your website gets hit with 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 and testing 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.
7 best load balancing software: My picks for 2025
- HAProxy is a server load balancer known for high performance and low latency (Free)
- Progress Kemp LoadMaster is a network load balancer offering adaptive load balancing and security ($2000/yr)
- Cloudflare Application Security and Performance is a global load balancer with DNS load balancing and DDoS protection ($30/mo)
- F5 NGINX Ingress Controller is a Kubernetes load balancer providing NGINX load balancing and API gateway features ($4,271/yr)
- Azure Application Gateway is a Layer 7 load balancer with elastic load balancing and intelligent routing ($0.0255/hr)
- Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode) is a cloud load balancer designed for global load and node balancing and high availability ($10/mo)
- Google Cloud Load Balancing is a cloud load balancer with DNS-based global load balancing and autoscaling ($0.025/hr)
* According to G2 Grid Reports, These load balancing software products are top-rated in their category.
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.
Testing 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.
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.
How did I find and evaluate the best load balancing software?
I tested the top load balancing software to assess their ability to distribute network traffic efficiently, ensure high availability, and optimize performance across various environments. To gain a deeper understanding, I also consulted with IT professionals to understand their challenges with traffic management and how these tools could meet their specific needs. Additionally, I used AI to analyze user feedback and reviews on G2 and G2’s Grid Reports, gathering insights into each tool’s performance, usability, and overall value. By combining hands-on testing with expert insights and user reviews, I’ve compiled a list of the best load balancing software to help you choose the right solution for your business's needs.
What makes load balancing software worth the investment: My opinion
When testing the best load balancing software, I focused on a few key factors to evaluate how well they address the complex needs of IT professionals:
Scalability: It is one of the most crucial aspects for load balancing software, as it ensures that the system can handle traffic spikes without impacting performance. I'd look for a tool to automatically scale based on demand—whether that’s by adding new
servers to the pool or dynamically allocating resources to existing ones. This ensures consistent performance during peak periods or sudden surges in traffic, such as seasonal sales or events. The ability to scale both vertically (upgrading server capacity) and horizontally (adding more servers) is essential to maintain high availability and optimal load distribution.
Ease of configuration: The software must be easy to configure with minimal manual intervention, especially when deploying across multiple servers or cloud environments. I would pick tools that provide intuitive,
graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that help speed up configuration without needing to manually tweak complex configurations or scripts. Pre-configured templates for common setups, like round-robin or least-connections methods, can dramatically reduce setup time. I would also look for
load balancers with automation capabilities that reduce the manual workload, such as the ability to automate scaling, failover, or updates.
Traffic distribution algorithms: The ability to fine-tune how traffic is routed to backend servers is essential. I would choose load balancers that offer a range of advanced distribution algorithms that are configurable to meet the specific needs of the infrastructure:
- Round robin: This method should evenly distribute incoming traffic to all available servers in a rotation, ensuring no single server is overwhelmed.
- Least connections: The system should route traffic to the server with the least number of 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 user state management.
- Latency-based routing: This advanced algorithm routes traffic based on the lowest response time of the server, ensuring faster delivery of content.
High availability and failover: The software must ensure that traffic is always routed to healthy servers, even if some servers fail. In the event of a failure, it should automatically perform failover, seamlessly rerouting traffic to the remaining healthy servers with minimal disruption. I would always suggest a system that would regularly monitor the health of servers and services using health checks, ensuring only responsive servers handle traffic. Furthermore, geo-redundancy is essential for high availability, especially for businesses with global traffic. The ability to failover not just within a single region but across multiple geographic locations is vital.
SSL offloading and security features: It is a must-have for any load balancing software I test. By terminating SSL connections at the load balancer level, I can offload the resource-intensive encryption and decryption tasks from backend servers, allowing them to focus on serving content. This improves server performance and reduces latency for users. In addition to SSL offloading, I need the software to support secure connections and provide additional security features:
- 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 IPs or users can access certain resources behind the load balancer.
Integration with existing infrastructure: The load balancing solution must integrate smoothly with the existing IT infrastructure, which often includes a mix of on-premise data centers and cloud environments. I look for software that can integrate with existing monitoring tools, networking solutions, and orchestration platforms. The ability to automatically configure load balancing rules based on real-time changes in the infrastructure is also crucial, especially in dynamic environments where new servers or services are frequently added or removed.
Monitoring and reporting capabilities: I look for a tool to offer real-time insights into the health of the network, including server performance, traffic distribution, and load balancing efficiency. Key metrics such as response times, server CPU utilization, and throughput should be tracked and available in real-time on an easy-to-read dashboard. Additionally, the software should provide historical data so that It teams can identify trends and potential areas for optimization. Custom alerts are important for notifying administrators of abnormal traffic patterns, potential failures, or security threats.
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
During my time testing HAProxy, I was particularly impressed by its ability to function as a fast reverse proxy for both transmission control protocol (TCP) and hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTP) based applications. This capability allowed me to handle a wide range of network traffic efficiently.
It offered Layer 4 (transport layer) and Layer 7 (application layer) load balancing, which proved invaluable in managing traffic across various services. With Layer 4, I was able to distribute traffic based on IP and port, which was essential for certain network setups. On the other hand, Layer 7 load balancing gave me a more sophisticated approach, enabling traffic distribution based on application-specific data, such as URLs or HTTP headers.
When it came to set up, I found the process to be surprisingly smooth. There were no major hurdles, and the software's integration with various Linux distributions and cloud platforms made it even easier to deploy across different environments. I didn’t face any compatibility issues, and it worked flawlessly, whether I was working with on-premise servers or cloud-based setups.
Additionally, HAProxy’s customization options stood out to me as a key advantage. I could tweak its configuration to suit my precise needs, whether it was for performance optimization, security adjustments, or routing tweaks. This level of flexibility allowed me to tailor the tool to the exact requirements of each infrastructure without feeling constrained by the software’s limitations.
The advanced request routing feature allowed me to direct traffic based on specific rules I defined, which was particularly useful when dealing with multiple services or instances of the same application. Coupled with health checks, I performed regular tests on the backend servers to make sure they were functioning correctly. If any server failed these checks, HAProxy would automatically stop sending traffic to it, preventing users from experiencing downtime or issues.
One of the most frustrating issues was with TCP logging. Getting the logging to write back to the fusion control plane wasn’t as seamless as expected. The integration process was cumbersome, and it took considerable effort to sync the logs properly. This limited my visibility into critical network processes and hindered troubleshooting, especially when trying to analyze application performance or diagnose network traffic.
Another significant challenge was HAProxy’s custom configuration language. The syntax was difficult to grasp, and I spent much time experimenting with different configurations to ensure they were correct. For someone without extensive experience with this kind of tool, this could be a major roadblock.
It relies on text file-based configurations, which can be cumbersome and prone to errors. Unlike more modern tools that offer graphical user interfaces, HAProxy's text-based setup demanded meticulous attention to detail, which increased the likelihood of mistakes and made it more difficult to manage complex configurations.
Furthermore, I found HAProxy lacking in support for service mesh features, which are increasingly vital for managing modern microservices architectures. There’s a noticeable absence of tools to simplify network topology management within Kubernetes environments. While HAProxy excels at load balancing and routing, it doesn’t offer the native features required for seamless service-to-service communication in a containerized setup, making it less suitable for large-scale, dynamic environments that rely on Kubernetes for orchestration.
What I like about HAProxy:
- I was impressed by HAProxy’s ability to function as a fast and reliable reverse proxy for TCP and HTTP-based applications. It allowed me to handle diverse network traffic efficiently and distribute it seamlessly across services.
- The customization options provided by HAProxy are a major advantage. I could fine-tune the configuration to optimize performance, adjust security settings, and route traffic exactly as needed, which gave me flexibility in handling various infrastructures.
What G2 users like about HAProxy:
"My company has been using HAProxy since I started six years ago, and all I can say is when a tool is rock solid and works, it just works. We have three proxies load-balanced between our staging and production systems, and they handle traffic perfectly. The support in the Slack channel is a highlight, especially when you're trying to find a solution for a rule or optimize it. Overall, I highly recommend HAProxy for anyone looking for a robust and efficient load-balancing solution. It also offers WAF support if you don’t want to deal with a dedicated WAF provider."
- HAProxy Review, Juwuan S.
What I dislike about HAProxy:
- The TCP logging integration with the fusion control plane was frustrating for me. It wasn’t as seamless as expected, and syncing the logs took considerable effort, limiting my ability to troubleshoot and monitor network performance effectively.
- HAProxy’s custom configuration language was difficult to grasp. As someone without extensive experience with such tools, the syntax proved to be a significant roadblock, requiring a lot of trial and error to get the configurations right.
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
Progress Kemp LoadMaster provided a centralized way to configure, monitor, and control load balancers through secure connectors. This allowed me to reduce the need to constantly switch between different management tools, making it much easier to maintain a streamlined application delivery infrastructure. The integration of this tool really minimized the complexity involved in managing the system, and the fact that I could control everything from a single interface was incredibly efficient.
Another feature that I greatly appreciated was the real-time alerts provided by LoadMaster. These alerts were crucial in informing me of any performance degradation, security threats, or capacity constraints. As soon as there was an issue, the system notified me immediately, allowing me to take action and prevent any potential disruptions to the application delivery.
The intelligent analytics and reporting tools within LoadMaster were also a huge plus. I found these tools invaluable for gaining insights into application delivery performance, user experience, and overall infrastructure utilization. The data-driven approach really helped me understand how well the system was functioning and where improvements could be made.
The initial configuration process was notably complex and required the assistance of an engineer. This meant that setting up the system wasn’t straightforward for someone like me without in-depth technical knowledge. The setup involved configuring network settings, licensing, and system parameters, which could be daunting.
Another aspect I struggled with was the learning curve. The terminology and the way features were structured within the tool weren’t immediately intuitive. It took me some time to get comfortable with how everything worked, and even with my background in engineering, I found myself referencing the documentation more than I would have liked.
While the documentation was generally helpful, I noticed that, at times, the explanations lacked clarity. This created confusion and required me to reach out for additional support. Clear and concise documentation is crucial for smooth troubleshooting and configuration, and I felt that these occasional ambiguities added to the complexity of the setup process.
I also found that the sorting filters were somewhat limited. When I had to deal with large sets of data, the lack of advanced sorting and filtering options made it harder for me to manage and analyze information effectively. More smart sorting filters would have made it easier for me to find relevant data quickly, improving my efficiency with the tool.
What I like about Progress Kemp LoadMaster:
- The centralized management of LoadMaster made my life much easier. I could configure, monitor, and control load balancers from a single interface, reducing the need to constantly switch between tools and simplifying the infrastructure.
- The real-time alerts feature was incredibly helpful. It informed me of performance issues, security threats, and capacity constraints, allowing me to take immediate action and prevent disruptions.
What G2 users like about Progress Kemp LoadMaster:
"I've been with an organization that has used Kemp for almost 10 years, and I can confidently say it's top-notch and will continue to be a key part of our infrastructure for many years to come. We use it as a reverse proxy, WAF, and load balancer. Whenever I have an issue, I pick up the phone, and support is always helpful. It's by far the best vendor I work with."
- Progress Kemp LoadMaster Review, Justin S.
What I dislike about Progress Kemp LoadMaster:
- The initial configuration process was complex for me. It required assistance from an engineer and involved configuring network settings, licensing, and system parameters, which was overwhelming without deep technical knowledge.
- The learning curve was steep for me due to the terminology and feature structure. Even with my engineering background, I often had to refer to documentation, and I still faced challenges in getting comfortable with how everything worked.
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
One of the standout features of Cloudflare Load Balancing is its ability to route visitors away from unhealthy origin servers. This ensures that, even when one server fails or becomes unresponsive, traffic is seamlessly redirected to healthy servers, resulting in zero downtime. This level of reliability is crucial when managing high-traffic platforms, as it guarantees that services stay online even during technical failures.
What I really appreciated was how easy it was to set up the load-balancing system. It distributes traffic evenly across healthy servers, helping to prevent any single server from becoming overwhelmed during periods of peak load. This helps maintain performance and ensures that the user experience remains smooth
I could monitor servers at configurable intervals, checking for specific status codes, response text, and timeouts. This flexibility allowed me to fine-tune the system to my needs, ensuring that I could detect and address any issues promptly.
Cloudflare’s solution also works seamlessly across multiple data centers, ensuring that traffic is routed intelligently, no matter where users are located. This level of local and global load balancing with fast delivery is crucial in managing a platform's performance during high-traffic periods.
Another advantage was how Cloudflare helped me manage caching. With my platform experiencing peak loads at times, it was essential to have a robust caching strategy. Cloudflare allowed me to cache versions of my platform even without directly interacting with my servers. This was particularly helpful because it provided a cached version of my content without putting strain on the servers, ensuring that performance remained high even under heavy load.
One of the most noticeable downsides is that routing traffic through Cloudflare's servers can introduce a slight increase in latency, resulting in slower load times. Depending on the cloud infrastructure, this might become more noticeable during periods of very high traffic.
Another challenge I faced was with SSL configuration. Setting up SSL certificates properly on Cloudflare requires attention to detail, and there were a few occasions when I had to be extra cautious to ensure I didn’t accidentally disrupt my existing network and services.
Finally, while Cloudflare’s default settings are generally helpful, I did run into instances where these settings caused false positives, blocking legitimate traffic. This is something to watch out for, as the system might mistakenly identify benign requests as threats and block them, which can result in potential service disruptions for users.
What I like about Cloudflare Application Security and Performance:
- I appreciate how Cloudflare Load Balancing ensures zero downtime by routing visitors away from unhealthy servers. This feature guarantees that services remain online, even during server failures, providing exceptional reliability.
- The easy setup process for Cloudflare Load Balancing allowed me to distribute traffic evenly across healthy servers. This helped maintain performance during peak traffic times and kept the user experience smooth.
What G2 users like about Cloudflare Application Security and Performance:
"Cloudflare is a highly reliable and robust application. It effectively accelerates real-time traffic, balancing network congestion. As a load balancer for both local and global web content transfer, it ensures smooth and efficient data flow. The DDoS protection is exceptionally strong, providing a high level of security. Additionally, the comprehensive set of APIs allows for strong access management and integration, enhancing its usability and flexibility."
- Cloudflare Application Security and Performance Review, Sam P.
What I dislike about Cloudflare Application Security and Performance:
- Routing traffic through Cloudflare’s servers can cause a slight increase in latency, especially during high-traffic periods. This could result in slower load times, which might impact user experience if not managed carefully.
- SSL configuration on Cloudflare requires meticulous attention, and I had to ensure that everything was set up correctly. If not done properly, it could disrupt the network and cause potential issues with the existing services.
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 their strong security measures. Cloudflare's caching practices can also limit your control over content management, which may lead 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
F5 NGINX Ingress Controller integrates performance and security, meeting the high demands of modern applications.
The DevOps-friendly distributed cloud DNS load balancer stood out for its ability to deliver high performance and global resiliency, ensuring seamless operation across multiple clouds, geographies, and availability zones.
The geolocation-based load balancing played a crucial role in maintaining a consistent, high-quality experience for end-users. This feature allowed me to manage performance effectively across diverse locations, ensuring that all users, regardless of where they were, could access the applications quickly and with optimal performance.
One of the key features I appreciated was the global Anycast network. This allowed me to direct clients to the nearest application instance, ensuring minimal latency and optimal performance.
The comprehensive app security features also left a positive impression. The WAF, DDoS mitigation, API security, and bot detection mechanisms were integral to safeguarding the applications. These tools worked effectively in tandem, providing me with peace of mind that my infrastructure was well protected from external threats and attacks.
I also experienced the introduction of the AI assistant in the F5 Distributed Cloud Console. Though still in its early stages, I was excited about its potential. The assistant seemed to offer great promise for streamlining management tasks and enhancing decision-making in the future.
However, my experience wasn’t without challenges. For starters, the community-driven support and documentation left much to be desired. While I was able to get some help, I found that the use cases available online were few and not as comprehensive as I would have liked.
Additionally, I had to manually craft certain WAF-like components, which added complexity to the setup. This wasn’t a major roadblock for someone with experience, but it may be a challenge for those like me who are less familiar with these types of configurations.
Setting up the tool itself was another area where I ran into some difficulties. While it provided robust functionality, I found that it could be a bit overwhelming, especially for those new to Kubernetes or ingress management. The technical expertise required for the setup process could make it difficult for beginners to quickly get up to speed with all its features and capabilities.
Lastly, I wasn’t fully satisfied with how the API associations were handled. It didn’t feel as intuitive or streamlined as I expected, and there were moments when I had to invest more time than anticipated to make everything work smoothly.
What I like about F5 NGINX Ingress Controller:
- F5 NGINX Ingress Controller stood out for its ability to seamlessly integrate performance and security. This allowed me to meet the high demands of modern applications while ensuring smooth operation across various clouds and geographies.
- I found the global Anycast network particularly useful, as it directed clients to the nearest application instance. This feature minimized latency and provided optimal performance, significantly enhancing the user experience.
What G2 users like about F5 NGINX Ingress Controller:
"Our company has been using the F5 NGINX Ingress Controller for many years to manage traffic for our Kubernetes systems, and it’s the best controller available for traffic management. The best part is that it’s very easy to use and implement. It also integrates well with various other solutions. Whenever we face any issues or concerns, we receive excellent customer support, often with instant assistance. We use it daily, and it consistently provides high reliability and sustainability."
- F5 NGINX Ingress Controller Review, Amruta C.
What I dislike about F5 NGINX Ingress Controller:
- I encountered challenges with the community-driven support and documentation, which lacked comprehensiveness. The available use cases were few, and I found myself searching for more detailed guidance to navigate the platform effectively.
- Setting up the tool was overwhelming at times, especially for someone less familiar with Kubernetes and ingress management. The complexity of the setup process required technical expertise, making it difficult for beginners to quickly get up to speed with all the features.
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
Azure Application Gateway offers a range of load-balancing options, allowing traffic distribution based on parameters such as URL path, HTTP headers, and cookies. This flexibility makes it ideal for balancing traffic across diverse web applications.
The layer 7 load balancing features stood out to me in particular, as they allow for advanced routing at the application layer. I was able to route traffic based on specific attributes, which provided greater control over how traffic was distributed across different backend services.
One feature that I found to be exceptionally valuable was the built-in web application firewall (WAF). The WAF provides an additional layer of security by protecting web applications from common vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. The fact that this security feature is integrated directly into the gateway gave me peace of mind, knowing that my applications were being actively protected from some of the most prevalent online threats.
Additionally, SSL termination proved to be a significant asset during testing. It relieved backend servers from the burden of SSL encryption and decryption processes, ensuring that these operations were handled by the Application Gateway itself. This not only reduced the load on backend servers but also improved the overall performance of the application by streamlining the process of securing communications.
Another feature that caught my attention was the session affinity functionality. By ensuring that all subsequent client requests were consistently routed to the same backend server, the Application Gateway enhanced the application's stability. This feature was particularly useful for applications that require persistence, as it ensured that users maintained their session state without disruptions.
Additionally, the URL-based routing functionality was a great asset. It allowed me to route traffic to specific backend pools based on URL paths, giving me finer control over traffic distribution. This enabled me to direct traffic to different backend servers depending on the requested path.
Setting up the tool was not always smooth. I found myself consulting documentation and support resources more than I would have liked. The configuration options, while powerful, are numerous, and navigating them can be overwhelming at times. This is where I think Azure Application Gateway could benefit from a more user-friendly setup process.
Another area that I found limiting was the lack of customization options for certain features. Tweaking certain parameters would have made the system more adaptable to my unique requirements and improved overall productivity.
Additionally, I ran into a roadblock when I wanted to route traffic based on specific headers. Azure Application Gateway did not natively support this, which meant I had to implement workarounds using other tools and techniques. While I managed to find a solution, it would have been much more convenient if the platform had provided direct support for this feature.
Lastly, I noticed that caching at the application gateway level could have helped maintain sticky sessions more effectively. While session affinity worked well, I felt that the lack of a caching mechanism at the gateway level led to occasional inefficiencies. In particular, when handling a high volume of traffic, the inability to cache session data at the gateway caused some performance bottlenecks.
What I like about Azure Application Gateway:
- Azure Application Gateway's flexibility in load balancing, especially with URL path, HTTP headers, and cookies, provided greater control over traffic distribution. This was particularly beneficial for balancing traffic across multiple web applications with different needs.
- The integrated web application firewall (WAF) gave me peace of mind by protecting my applications from common vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting (XSS). This added layer of security was a significant advantage, ensuring my applications were shielded from prevalent online threats.
What G2 users about Azure Application Gateway:
"Azure Application Gateway provides a comprehensive suite of Layer 7 load balancing features. At the application layer, it routes traffic based on attributes like URL or cookie, offering advanced load balancing. It also includes a built-in Web Application Firewall (WAF) to protect web applications from common threats like SQL injection and cross-site scripting. The gateway handles SSL termination, relieving backend servers from the heavy lifting of encryption and decryption. With session affinity, it ensures that subsequent client requests are directed to the same backend server, improving stability. Additionally, the URL-based routing feature enables precise traffic distribution to various backend pools based on specific URL paths, giving more control over routing configurations."
- Azure Application Gateway Review, Gajan A.
What I dislike about Azure Application Gateway:
- The setup process was not always smooth, as the numerous configuration options were sometimes overwhelming. I found myself consulting documentation and support resources more frequently than I would have liked, indicating a need for a more user-friendly approach.
- I encountered limitations with customization options for certain features, which hindered my ability to fully adapt the system to my needs. The inability to tweak specific parameters reduced overall productivity and flexibility in tailoring the gateway to my requirements.
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 like 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 (formerly Linode)
When I first tested Akamai Connected Cloud, I was impressed with its native load-balancing feature. The ability to set up a load-balanced web server without needing additional servers to manage the balancing was a huge advantage. It made the process much simpler, allowing me to focus more on application performance rather than infrastructure management.
The session affinity feature also worked seamlessly, ensuring that users were consistently routed to the same origin during normal operations. This was key in providing uninterrupted experiences for end users, especially when handling high-traffic or complex applications that require persistence.
Additionally, the instant failover capability was a standout feature. It automatically rerouted user sessions to backup origins at the edge, maintaining continuous application availability during unexpected outages. This was particularly helpful during maintenance or when performing updates, as it allowed me to remove single servers from the mix for testing or upgrades without disrupting the overall user experience.
One of the aspects I found particularly beneficial was the ability to easily manage and monitor traffic. Akamai Connected Cloud provided a comprehensive dashboard that displayed real-time usage statistics, including traffic and CPU usage for my website. This made it easy for me to track the health of my server and spot any potential issues before they became major problems.
The environment is not particularly user-friendly, especially for newcomers. While the tool offers powerful features, navigating through them can sometimes be complex, making it harder for those who are not as familiar with server administration. I found that the interface, while functional, could be overwhelming for first-time users, as there are numerous options and settings to configure.
One issue I encountered was the slow performance when storing large amounts of data. It took longer than expected to store and retrieve big data, which could be a limitation for applications requiring fast data processing.
Another downside was the lack of multiple certificate support within their load balancing service. Since the environment I was testing handles various HTTPS domains, I had to purchase separate instances for each domain to manage the certificates, which added to the overall cost and complexity of my setup.
I also found that Akamai Connected Cloud's international server locations were somewhat limited, particularly impacting regions like Europe and Latin America. This limitation could affect latency and performance for users in these areas, making it less ideal for applications with a global user base. The lack of sufficient data centers in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa further hindered service availability in these regions.
What I like about Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode):
- I was impressed with Akamai Connected Cloud’s native load-balancing feature, as it allowed me to set up a load-balanced web server without needing additional servers. This simplicity made it easier for me to focus on application performance instead of managing the infrastructure.
- The instant failover capability stood out to me, as it automatically rerouted user sessions to backup origins during outages. This ensured the application remained available, especially during maintenance or updates, without interrupting the user experience.
What G2 users like about Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode):
"It offers a native load balancer, which many budget VPS providers lack. This feature allows me to easily set up a load-balanced web server without needing extra servers to manage the balancing. It’s especially helpful during updates and testing, as I can remove individual servers from the mix and re-add them as needed."
- Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode) Review, Verified User in Design
What I dislike about Akamai Connected Cloud (formerly Linode):
- I found the environment a bit difficult to navigate, especially as a newcomer. The interface, while functional, was overwhelming due to the numerous settings and options, making it harder for someone like me who isn’t an expert in server administration.
- When storing large amounts of data, I noticed slower performance than I anticipated. This delay in storing and retrieving big data became a challenge, particularly for applications that require fast data processing.
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
When I first tested Google Cloud Load Balancing, I was impressed by its versatility and global reach.
The platform's ability to distribute traffic efficiently across various instances ensured high availability and reliability for my applications. It supported multiple protocols, including HTTP(S), TCP, SSL, and UDP load balancing, which provided the flexibility to meet different application requirements.
The flexible deployment options were particularly beneficial. They allowed me to deploy load-balancing solutions for various scenarios, such as External HTTP(S), TCP/UDP, and Internal TCP/UDP Load Balancing. This made it adaptable for a variety of use cases, ensuring that I could scale and manage resources effectively.
Another standout feature was the platform's ability to handle significant traffic peaks. It managed large volumes of traffic seamlessly, ensuring that my applications remained responsive even during high-demand periods. The ability to distribute load-balanced compute resources across multiple regions closer to the users helped reduce latency and enhance performance.
The auto-scaling feature is also worth mentioning. This automatic adjustment of resources in response to changing traffic patterns helped me maintain optimal performance without needing manual intervention.
Additionally, its integration with Google cloud monitoring made tracking the health and performance of the load balancers straightforward, allowing me to identify and resolve potential issues proactively.
Configuring advanced settings, such as custom health checks or routing rules, proved to be difficult. The underlying configuration intricacies, combined with occasional issues with load balancer health checks, made the initial experience less seamless. Even though the platform has extensive documentation, I found that a significant amount of IT knowledge was required to navigate the setup process effectively.
Despite the user-friendly admin panel, I felt it lacked sufficient guidance when handling more complex configurations. The autogenerated names from the Google Kubernetes engine were another hurdle, as they did not immediately provide insight into which cluster or service a load balancer was associated with. This lack of clarity added an extra layer of complexity to resource management.
In addition, I found that advanced configuration options were limited in some areas. For instance, some specific features I wanted, such as deeper header-based routing or more granular control over SSL configurations, were not directly supported, which required me to implement workarounds that were not ideal.
What I like about Google Cloud Load Balancing:
- I was really impressed by Google Cloud Load Balancing's versatility and global reach. Its ability to distribute traffic efficiently across various instances ensured that my applications remained highly available and reliable, even under heavy load.
- The auto-scaling feature worked wonders for me. It automatically adjusted resources based on changing traffic patterns, allowing me to maintain optimal performance without having to intervene manually.
What G2 users like about Google Cloud Load Balancing:
"I was impressed by how Google Cloud Load Balancing handled a huge peak in traffic. Its features helped protect our server from overloading, ensuring our website stayed online. The seamless autoscaling feature took the worry out of unexpected traffic spikes by redirecting them to other channels and regions worldwide, optimizing traffic flow efficiently."
- Google Cloud Load Balancing Review, Nicolas F.
What I dislike about Google Cloud Load Balancing:
- Configuring advanced settings, such as custom health checks and routing rules, was more complicated than I expected. Despite extensive documentation, I found that a significant amount of IT knowledge was required to set things up effectively.
- I struggled with the autogenerated names from Google Kubernetes Engine, which lacked clarity on which cluster or service the load balancer was associated with. This made resource management more difficult and added unnecessary complexity to the process.
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 if the primary server fails. 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 provides advanced features like 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 acts as an entry point for API requests, handling tasks like 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 testing various load balancing software, I’ve realized that the right choice can make all the difference.
Without it, you risk facing slow performance, service outages, or even full-blown traffic jams in your infrastructure. Imagine trying to keep everything running smoothly with a broken GPS—servers just won’t know where to go, and it’s a 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 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 you should choose them to store resources.
.png?width=400&height=150&name=Untitled%20design%20(56).png)
.png)
.png)