Load balancers · November 2026 Edition
NGINX vs Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Three of fourteen models named NGINX first on the direct prompt; three named Progress Kemp LoadMaster. NGINX was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Progress Kemp LoadMaster by six and NGINX carries 57 labels and Progress Kemp LoadMaster 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share16%12%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate7%9%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#4A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels5711A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, NGINX reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.HAProxy was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. HAProxy vs NGINX · HAProxy vs Progress Kemp LoadMaster · NGINX vs Kemp LoadMaster
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.
NGINXFirst choices, of fourteen modelsProgress Kemp LoadMasterDirect33
Paraphrase031 against NGINX
Comparative00
Budget-constrained30
Scale-constrained20
Negative003 against NGINX · 1 against Progress Kemp LoadMaster
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 NGINX and Progress Kemp LoadMaster 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 | PK | PK | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | PK | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | PK | PK | | | | PK |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | | |
| Kimi K2 | | | | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | PK | | | PK | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | PK | |
NGINXPK Progress Kemp LoadMaster first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, NGINX on the left and Progress Kemp LoadMaster on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where NGINX and Progress Kemp LoadMaster stood in it.
NGINX first, Progress Kemp LoadMaster not the choice
3 of 14 modelsProgress Kemp LoadMaster was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Mistral SmallNGINX alternatives: Citrix ADC, F5 BIG-IP, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster, Loadbalancer.org Enterprise ADC
Llama 4 MaverickNGINX alternatives: Citrix ADC, F5 BIG-IP, HAProxy, Kemp LoadMaster
Qwen 3.7 FlashNGINX alternatives: Application Load Balancer, HAProxy
Progress Kemp LoadMaster first, NGINX an alternative
3 of 14 modelsNGINX was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarProgress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
DeepSeek V4 FlashHAProxy, Progress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: NGINX
GLM 4.7 FlashXProgress Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: Cloudflare Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
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.Claude Haiku 4.5AWS Application Load Balancer, Azure Load Balancer, Network Load Balancer alternatives: Google Cloud Load Balancing, NGINX
Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare Load Balancing alternatives: AWS Application Load Balancer, Azure Application Gateway, GCP Cloud Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Grok 4.20HAProxy alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing (ELB) – ALB/NLB, Cloudflare Load Balancing, Loadbalancer.org Enterprise ADC, NGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
MiniMax M2.5no first choice alternatives: AWS Application Load Balancer, Azure Load Balancer, Citrix ADC, F5 BIG-IP, Google Cloud Load Balancing, HAProxy, NGINX
Muse Glimmer 30BHAProxy alternatives: AWS Elastic Load Balancing, Azure Load Balancer, NGINX, Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Neither was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniAWS Application Load Balancer alternatives: AWS Network Load Balancer, Cloudflare Load Balancing, Google Cloud Application Load Balancer
Kimi K2Kemp LoadMaster alternatives: HAProxy
GPT-6 LunaApplication Load Balancer alternatives: Application Gateway, External Application Load Balancer, Front Door, 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
NGINX leads by three points.
NGINX12%#3 of 14Progress Kemp LoadMaster9%#– of 14
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
NGINX leads by four points.
NGINX16%#2 of 16Progress Kemp LoadMaster12%#4 of 16
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
The order flips: Progress Kemp LoadMaster leads at enterprise.
Progress Kemp LoadMaster8%#4 of 16
NGINX2%#6 of 16What the models said about NGINX
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of five in this category shown.
“Recent critical vulnerabilities (e.g., CVEs from 2024–2026 patches by F5) can lead to crashes, denial-of-service (DoS), or remote code execution.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Running a single NGINX or HAProxy instance as your load balancer creates a single point of failure” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Consider NGINX Plus or HAProxy Enterprise if you have strong Linux/SysAdmin skills. They offer the best performance-to-cost ratio” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Kemp LoadMaster (mid-size friendly ADC) and NGINX Plus (if you have Linux/NGINX skills) are strong fits” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“NGINX Plus often being the best fit for mid-market B2B companies seeking a reliable and scalable solution” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Progress Kemp LoadMaster
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“CVE-2026-8037 - a pre-authentication command injection vulnerability ... Actively being exploited in attacks” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Progress Kemp LoadMaster — if you value ease of use, good security features out-of-the-box” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Progress Kemp LoadMaster is the best default choice.” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“Best Overall for Value, Simplicity & Hybrid IT: Progress Kemp LoadMaster” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
HAProxy vs NGINXHAProxy vs Progress Kemp LoadMasterNGINX vs Kemp LoadMasterNGINX vs AWS Elastic Load BalancingNGINX vs A10 Thunder ADCNGINX vs AWS Application Load BalancerNGINX vs Cloudflare Load BalancingKemp LoadMaster vs Progress Kemp LoadMasterProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs AWS Elastic Load BalancingProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs A10 Thunder ADCProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs AWS Application Load BalancerProgress Kemp LoadMaster vs Cloudflare Load BalancingAll 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.