Load balancers · October 2026 Edition
Progress Kemp LoadMaster vs Traefik
Five of fourteen models named Progress Kemp LoadMaster first on the direct prompt; zero named Traefik. Progress Kemp LoadMaster was named by ten of the fourteen models and Traefik by ten and Progress Kemp LoadMaster carries 20 labels and Traefik 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share27%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels2021A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Progress Kemp LoadMaster reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.HAProxy was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. HAProxy vs Progress Kemp LoadMaster · HAProxy vs Traefik · Progress Kemp LoadMaster vs NGINX
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the load balancers page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Progress Kemp LoadMasterFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTraefik
Direct50
Paraphrase90
Comparative01
Budget-constrained01
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Progress Kemp LoadMaster and Traefik stood in it.
| Model | DirectPK | ParaphrasePK | ComparativePK | Budget-constrainedPK | Scale-constrainedPK | NegativePK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | PK | PK | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | PK | PK | | |||
| Mistral Small | PK | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | PK | PK | | | PK | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | PK | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | PK | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | PK | PK | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | PK | PK | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | PK | PK | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | PK | PK | |
PK Progress Kemp LoadMaster TraefikPK first choicePK named as an alternativePK argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Progress Kemp LoadMaster on the left and Traefik on the right.
TraefikPK first choicePK named as an alternativePK argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Progress Kemp LoadMaster on the left and Traefik on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Progress Kemp LoadMaster and Traefik stood in it.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster first, Traefik not the choice
5 of 14 modelsTraefik was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashProgress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Application Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
Kimi K2HAProxy, Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: F5 NGINX
GLM 4.7 FlashXNGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: F5 BIG-IP, HAProxy
MiniMax M2.5Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, GCP Cloud Load Balancing, NGINX
Muse Glimmer 30BProgress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare Load Balancing alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy, NGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Grok 4.1 FastHAProxy, NGINX alternatives: AWS ALB, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, GCP Cloud Load Balancing, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Mistral SmallCloudflare Load Balancing alternatives: HAProxy, Progress Kemp LoadMaster, VMware Avi Load Balancer
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, NGINX alternatives: Citrix ADC, F5, HAProxy
GPT-5.4 miniApplication Load Balancer alternatives: Azure Load Balancer, Google Cloud's Application Load Balancer, Network Load Balancer
Perplexity SonarHAProxy alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Application Gateway
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashAWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Application Gateway, NGINX alternatives: Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy
GPT-6 LunaAWS Application Load Balancer alternatives: Azure Application Gateway, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, Google Cloud Application Load Balancer, Google Cloud Network Load Balancer
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Progress Kemp LoadMaster leads by seven points.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster9%#– of 13
Traefik1%#10 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Progress Kemp LoadMaster leads by twenty-five points.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster27%#2 of 13
Traefik2%#6 of 13Enterprise
Progress Kemp LoadMaster leads by four points.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster4%#– of 10
Traefik0%#– of 10What the models said about Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Best All-Rounder (Hybrid/Virtual/On-Premises): Progress Kemp LoadMaster ... is widely considered the gold standard for the mid-market.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Progress Kemp LoadMaster as the best application delivery controller for a mid-sized B2B company” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Progress Kemp LoadMaster (now part of Progress) is the one I would suggest as the default starting point.” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Traefik
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“For most small businesses today, Traefik offers the best balance of cost (free), ease of management (auto-discovery), and functionality” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Cloud-native champion - designed for containers ... Kubernetes/container-heavy | Traefik or NGINX Ingress” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you run Docker/Kubernetes: Go with Traefik. It integrates seamlessly and reduces operational overhead.” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
HAProxy vs Progress Kemp LoadMasterHAProxy vs TraefikProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs NGINXProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs AWS Elastic Load BalancingProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs Cloudflare Load BalancingProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs Azure Load BalancerProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs Azure Application GatewayNGINX vs TraefikAWS Elastic Load Balancing vs TraefikCloudflare Load Balancing vs TraefikTraefik vs Azure Load BalancerTraefik vs Azure Application GatewayAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full load balancers standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.