Index › Products › Network Load Balancer · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Network Load Balancer

8Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

5 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Network Load Balancer was named 6 times in Load balancers, where HAProxy led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business61 of 104

under the label threshold

Mid-market19 of 94

under the label threshold

Enterprise56 of 99

under the label threshold

In load balancers · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Network Load Balancer for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Load balancers	Network and edge	0%	19 of 94	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by HAProxy at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Network Load Balancer yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Network Load Balancer across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative8 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Move to Application Load Balancer (HTTP/HTTPS) or Network Load Balancer (TCP/UDP)” Kimi K2 · Load balancers · negative prompt · alternative

“Use Network Load Balancers (NLB) for TCP/UDP traffic; they operate at Layer 4” Muse Glimmer 30B · Load balancers · negative prompt · alternative

“For high-performance TCP/UDP: AWS NLB or Azure Standard LB.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Load balancers · comparative prompt · alternative

“or the Network Load Balancer (NLB) for raw TCP traffic” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Load balancers · negative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Network Load Balancer, over the 8 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Network Load Balancer was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

HAProxy8 of 81Not among the top eight

Application Load Balancer7 of 82Not among the top eight

NGINX6 of 81Not among the top eight

F5 BIG-IP5 of 81Not among the top eight

Application Gateway4 of 80Not among the top eight

Azure Load Balancer4 of 80Not among the top eight

Azure Front Door3 of 80Not among the top eight

Traefik3 of 80Not among the top eight

AWS Classic Load Balancer2 of 80Not among the top eight

Cloud Load Balancing2 of 80Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Network Load Balancer. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 6 of the 8 answers that named Network Load Balancer and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

docs.aws.amazon.com4

docs.cloud.google.com4

learn.microsoft.com4

g2.com3

loadbalancer.org3

aws.amazon.com2

f5.com2

guideflow.com2

linkedin.com2

nomios.com2

No domain is on file for Network Load Balancer, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

docs.cloud.google.com/load-balancing/docs/choosing-load-balancer3

loadbalancer.org/blog/whats-the-best-cloud-load-balancer3

aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/faqs2

docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/classic/introduction.html2

guideflow.com/et-ee/blog/load-balancer-software2

learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/load-balancer/load-balancer-overview2

nomios.com/news-blog/best-load-balancers-20242

site24x7.com/learn/clb-vs-alb-vs-nlb.html2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Network Load Balancer

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Network Load Balancer; a claim can dispute any of them.

Network Load Balancer (NLB) 4AWS Application Load Balancer (ALB) / Network Load Balancer (NLB) 1

Follow Network Load Balancer

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Network Load Balancer's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Network Load Balancer, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Network Load Balancer by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Network Load Balancer is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name Network Load Balancer, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.