What is MetalLB?
Provides network load balancing functionality for bare metal Kubernetes deployments that lack built-in cloud provider integrations, addressing the limitation that standard Kubernetes load balancers only work with cloud platforms.
MetalLB pricing
We don't have MetalLB's full plan breakdown yet (its pricing page resisted automated reading). Here's what we could confirm. Always check live pricing for exact numbers.
Platform & deployment
Independently observed- On-premise
- Self-hosted
Security & compliance
Known vulnerabilities: 0 (0 in the last 12 months) sourcea count reflects scale & disclosure, not quality
MetalLB alternatives
Other load balancers we track, ranked by the same independent score.
- AWS Elastic Load BalancingAutomatically distribute traffic across multiple targets for high-availability applicationslow · 28%
- Cloudflare Load BalancingRoute traffic across multiple clouds and data centers with automatic failoverlow · 20%
- Envoy Proxylow · 20%
- Citrix ADC (NetScaler)A unified platform for delivering and securing applications across any infrastructure with high performance and built-in threat protection.low · 12%
- Kemp LoadMasterLoad balancing platform for enterprise infrastructure spanning cloud, containers, and on-premises environmentslow · 12%
- Google Cloud Load BalancingA traffic distribution system that automatically scales to handle varying workloads while maintaining application performance and uptimelow · 2%
Compare MetalLB
Side by side against other load balancers, attribute by attribute, with a source on every value.
The Vioscale score: one lens on the evidence
Not user reviews and not a paid placement: a confidence-weighted blend of the independent signals below (adoption, activity, security posture, and more), which you can sort and re-weight yourself. Vendors can correct their listing but can never move their rank, and stars are weighted low as a vanity metric. It is one way to read the evidence for MetalLB, not the verdict.
| Signal | Score | Weight | Contribution | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Development activity | 35 | 0.09 | 3.3 | ✓ |
| Security score | 63 | 0.04 | 2.6 | ✓ |
| Dependent projects | 36 | 0.06 | 2.3 | ✓ |
| Stars | 74 | 0.03 | 1.9 | ✓ |
| Capabilities | 0 | 0.08 | 0.0 | - |
| Integrations | 0 | 0.07 | 0.0 | - |
| Release cadence | 0 | 0.05 | 0.0 | - |
| Security posture | 0 | 0.07 | 0.0 | - |
| Package downloads | 0 | 0.14 | 0.0 | - |
| Developer Q&A activity | 0 | 0.06 | 0.0 | - |
Computed . Re-weight it by intent, or see the full method.
All data & sourcesshow ↓
Every value we hold, with its source, retrieval date, and confidence. This is the evidence behind the score: don't trust it, verify it.
Activity
| Attribute | Value | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Commits last 30d | 12 | mediumsource · 2026-08-26 · 65% |
Adoption
Language
| Attribute | Value | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | Go | highsource · 2026-08-26 · 90% |
License
| Attribute | Value | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Spdx | Apache-2.0 | highsource · 2026-08-26 · 95% |
Pricing
Release
| Attribute | Value | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| History | 20 items | mediumsource · 2026-08-26 · 70% |