Load balancers · October 2026 Edition
Traefik vs Azure Load Balancer
Zero of fourteen models named Traefik first on the direct prompt; one named Azure Load Balancer. Traefik was named by ten of the fourteen models and Azure Load Balancer by thirteen and Traefik carries 21 labels and Azure Load Balancer 29, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Azure Load Balancer
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%14%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels2129A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Traefik 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 Traefik · HAProxy vs Azure Load Balancer · Progress Kemp LoadMaster vs Traefik
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.
TraefikFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAzure Load BalancerDirect01
Paraphrase00
Comparative10
Budget-constrained102 against Azure Load Balancer
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Azure Load Balancer
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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Traefik and Azure Load Balancer were named in the same answer eighteen times, of the 55 answers naming Traefik and the 83 naming Azure Load Balancer. In those answers Azure Load Balancer took the first choice zero times and Traefik zero.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Traefik and Azure Load Balancer stood in it.
| Model | DirectAL | ParaphraseAL | ComparativeAL | Budget-constrainedAL | Scale-constrainedAL | NegativeAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | AL | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | AL | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | AL | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | AL | | AL | |||
| Mistral Small | AL | AL | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | AL | AL | AL | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | AL | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | | |||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | AL | AL | AL | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | AL | AL | ||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | AL | AL |
TraefikAL Azure Load Balancer first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Traefik on the left and Azure Load Balancer on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Traefik and Azure Load Balancer stood in it.
Azure Load Balancer first, Traefik not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTraefik was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, NGINX alternatives: Citrix ADC, F5, HAProxy
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniApplication Load Balancer alternatives: Azure Load Balancer, Google Cloud's Application Load Balancer, Network Load Balancer
Grok 4.1 FastHAProxy, NGINX alternatives: AWS ALB, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, GCP Cloud Load Balancing, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
MiniMax M2.5Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, GCP Cloud Load Balancing, NGINX
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
Muse Glimmer 30BProgress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
Neither was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare Load Balancing alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy, NGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Perplexity SonarHAProxy alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Application Gateway
Mistral SmallCloudflare Load Balancing alternatives: HAProxy, Progress Kemp LoadMaster, VMware Avi Load Balancer
DeepSeek V4 FlashProgress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Application Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashAWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Application Gateway, NGINX alternatives: Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy
Kimi K2HAProxy, Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: F5 NGINX
GLM 4.7 FlashXNGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: F5 BIG-IP, HAProxy
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
Azure Load Balancer leads by four points.
Azure Load Balancer6%#6 of 13
Traefik1%#10 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Traefik2%#6 of 13Azure Load Balancer2%#7 of 13
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Traefik0%#– of 10Azure Load Balancer0%#10 of 10
The full enterprise standing →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
What the models said about Azure Load Balancer
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Cloud-native load balancers (AWS ELB, Azure LB, GCP LB) ... may lack deep packet inspection, advanced routing rules, or cross-cloud consistency” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Traefik is rated higher for value, with reviewers expressing greater satisfaction with its pricing compared to Azure Load Balancer.” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · soft negative
“excellent within their ecosystems but can lead to vendor lock-in” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“Cloud-native load balancers (AWS ALB, Azure LB) are often the best fit” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Azure Load Balancer for network-layer distribution, especially in Azure-native environments.” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · alternative
“AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, or Google Cloud Load Balancing” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
HAProxy vs TraefikHAProxy vs Azure Load BalancerProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs TraefikProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs Azure Load BalancerNGINX vs TraefikNGINX vs Azure Load BalancerAWS Elastic Load Balancing vs TraefikAWS Elastic Load Balancing vs Azure Load BalancerCloudflare Load Balancing vs TraefikCloudflare Load Balancing vs Azure Load BalancerTraefik vs Azure Application GatewayAzure Load Balancer 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.