This blog explains the difference between an Ingress Controller and a Load Balancer in Kubernetes. Learn how each handles traffic, their use cases, cost impact, and when to use one over the other for scalable and secure cloud-native deployments.
In cloud-native applications and Kubernetes environments, understanding how traffic is managed is crucial for ensuring scalability, availability, and security. Two key components often discussed in this context are the Ingress Controller and the Load Balancer.
These tools serve distinct yet sometimes overlapping functions in managing and directing traffic. So, what is the real difference between an Ingress Controller and a Load Balancer?
This blog breaks down the fundamental differences, explores use cases, and helps you decide when to use one over the other in your Kubernetes deployment.
What Is a Load Balancer?
A load balancer is a traditional networking component used to distribute incoming network traffic across multiple backend servers. The primary goal is to ensure no single server becomes a bottleneck, which helps maintain performance and availability.
In Kubernetes, load balancers are often used at the Service level. When you create a Service of type LoadBalancer, Kubernetes provisions an external load balancer (e.g., from a cloud provider) that routes external traffic to your Pods. This type of load balancer works at Layer 4 of the OSI model and provides straightforward routing without application-layer intelligence.
Get centralized traffic control with Ecosmob Ingress Controller.
What Is an Ingress Controller?
An Ingress Controller is a specialized Kubernetes resource that manages external access to services within a cluster, typically HTTP and HTTPS traffic. It interprets Ingress resources (rules) and configures an underlying proxy (e.g., NGINX, HAProxy, or Traefik) to route traffic accordingly.
While a load balancer handles traffic distribution at the network level, the Ingress Controller acts at the application layer (Layer 7), offering more granular control over routing. This includes capabilities such as SSL termination, Kubernetes path-based routing, host-based routing, and integration with security policies.
Ingress Controller vs Load Balancer: A Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | Ingress Controller | Load Balancer |
| Layer | Application Layer (L7) | Transport/Network Layer (L4) |
| Purpose | Manages routing rules for HTTP/S traffic | Distributes traffic across services or nodes |
| Configuration | Defined via Ingress resources | Defined via Service resources |
| Cost | Usually requires fewer public IPs | May consume more cloud resources and public IPs |
| Flexibility | High (supports host/path-based routing, SSL termination) | Basic traffic distribution |
| Best for | Managing multiple HTTP services | Exposing single services directly |
Kubernetes Ingress Controller vs Load Balancer: Which Should You Use?
Understanding the comparison between Kubernetes Ingress Controller vs Load Balancer is essential for optimizing your infrastructure. If your application is simple and only needs to expose a few services externally, a Load Balancer service might be enough. However, for a more complex architecture, especially with microservices, the Ingress Controller becomes crucial.
When your application requires direct access to a service, especially if it uses protocols other than HTTP or HTTPS, a Load Balancer is the better option. It provides direct connectivity and lower latency for TCP or UDP traffic. Moreover, configuring a Load Balancer is often simpler, as it doesn’t involve managing Ingress rules or maintaining routing logic.
On the other hand, when you have multiple HTTP services running within your Kubernetes cluster and want to route traffic based on hostname or URL path, the Ingress Controller is a more efficient and scalable solution. It allows you to consolidate traffic through a single entry point, manage TLS certificates centrally, and apply fine-grained traffic control policies.
Ecosmob helps you handle multi-service routing with ease.
Is an Ingress Controller a Load Balancer?
A frequently asked question is: Is an Ingress Controller a Load Balancer? Technically, the answer is no. While they both serve the purpose of distributing traffic, their methods and objectives differ.
An Ingress Controller operates at the application layer, making routing decisions based on HTTP headers, hostnames, and URL paths. It is built on top of reverse proxy technologies that often provide load balancing capabilities, which is why the distinction can be confusing.
However, a Load Balancer primarily operates at the transport or network layer, routing packets without understanding application-level details.
That said, many Ingress Controllers incorporate load balancing logic as part of their feature set. For example, an NGINX Ingress Controller can balance HTTP traffic among multiple backend pods, effectively combining both roles into a single system. Still, the Ingress Controller’s primary role remains managing application-level traffic.
How do They Work Together?
In a production Kubernetes environment, Ingress Controllers and Load Balancers are typically used in tandem. The Load Balancer is responsible for providing an external IP address to your Kubernetes cluster. This IP address is then mapped to the Ingress Controller, which interprets Ingress rules and forwards requests to the appropriate internal services.
This collaboration creates a layered architecture: the Load Balancer handles the network traffic and ensures availability, while the Ingress Controller performs advanced routing and applies security policies. This model offers both reliability and flexibility, enabling efficient traffic management across a wide range of services.
Kubernetes Load Balancer Service vs Ingress: What’s the Difference?
The distinction between Kubernetes Load Balancer Service vs Ingress lies in their scope and functionality. A LoadBalancer service is a native Kubernetes construct that provisions an external IP from the cloud provider and routes traffic to a single service. It is best suited for exposing one service per Load Balancer.
Ingress, on the other hand, is designed to route HTTP and HTTPS traffic to multiple services within the cluster using a single external IP. This makes it a more scalable and cost-effective solution for handling multiple microservices. With Ingress, you can define complex routing rules, perform TLS termination, and apply security policies such as rate limiting or IP whitelisting.
If your application consists of a small number of services and doesn’t require complex routing, the LoadBalancer service is easier to implement. But for larger architectures or when you want to reduce cloud costs and streamline traffic flow, Ingress is the better choice.
Scale microservices smoothly with Ecosmob’s Ingress expertise.
Cost Considerations
From a cost perspective, using a LoadBalancer service for every Kubernetes application can quickly become expensive. Each LoadBalancer typically consumes a cloud provider’s external IP and associated billing, leading to increased infrastructure costs.
Conversely, an Ingress Controller Load Balancer model allows multiple applications to share a single external IP, significantly reducing the number of load balancers required. This setup minimises cloud usage and lowers expenses, which is especially beneficial in microservices environments where many services need to be externally accessible.
Security and Observability
Ingress Controllers offer robust security features at the application layer. They support TLS/SSL termination, making it easier to manage and update certificates. Additionally, many controllers integrate with Web Application Firewalls (WAFs), enabling deeper inspection and protection against threats such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting.
They also offer advanced observability features, including access logs, detailed metrics, and integration with monitoring tools such as Prometheus and Grafana. Load Balancers, while they may offer basic security features such as IP filtering or DDoS mitigation (depending on the cloud provider), do not provide the same level of visibility and control over traffic.
Scalability and Flexibility
Scalability is a significant consideration in Kubernetes environments. Ingress Controllers are inherently more flexible because they allow you to scale individual services and update routing rules without redeploying the entire stack. They are instrumental in CI/CD workflows where application updates are frequent.
Load Balancers are reliable for basic scaling and offer good performance, but they are not as agile when it comes to complex traffic patterns or large numbers of services. In scenarios where flexibility and speed are essential, the Ingress Controller stands out as the more dynamic choice.
Which One Do You Really Need?
The decision between using an Ingress Controller vs Load Balancer should be based on your architecture’s complexity, scalability needs, and cost constraints. For simple applications with minimal services, a Load Balancer is sufficient. But for more sophisticated setups involving multiple microservices, HTTPS requirements, and custom routing logic, an Ingress Controller offers clear advantages.
In many production setups, organisations opt to use both options. The Load Balancer serves as the entry point, directing traffic to the Ingress Controller, which then handles advanced routing and security. This layered design leverages the strengths of both components, offering a robust and scalable solution.
Ingress Controllers and Load Balancers each play essential roles in Kubernetes networking. Understanding the difference between an Ingress Controller and a Load Balancer enables you to design more effective infrastructure. Whether you’re building a complex cloud-native application or just getting started with Kubernetes, selecting the right traffic management strategy is crucial to success.
At Ecosmob, we don’t just deploy Ingress Controllers. We engineer scalable and secure ingress solutions built for modern Kubernetes environments. Our First SIP Ingress Controller is built to seamlessly manage HTTP and SIP traffic, giving you a unified, high-performance entry point for all services.
Get started with Ecosmob’s FirstSIP Ingress Controller today.
FAQs
What is the key difference between Ingress Controller and Load Balancer?
An Ingress Controller operates at Layer 7 (the application layer) to manage HTTP/S routing, while a Load Balancer works at Layer 4 (the transport layer) to distribute network traffic. Their functions differ in scope and use case within Kubernetes.
Is Ingress Controller a type of Load Balancer?
Not exactly. While an Ingress Controller can perform load balancing for HTTP traffic, it is primarily designed for advanced routing and traffic management. A traditional Load Balancer, on the other hand, distributes traffic at the network level without application-layer intelligence.
When should I use a Load Balancer in Kubernetes?
Use a Load Balancer when you need to expose a single service externally with minimal configuration. It’s ideal for simple apps or services requiring TCP/UDP access rather than HTTP.
When is Ingress Controller a better choice?
Ingress Controllers are best for complex applications with multiple HTTP services that require routing based on hostnames or URL paths. They allow centralized traffic control and are more scalable.
Can both Ingress and Load Balancer work together?
Yes, and they often do. The Load Balancer provides an external IP, and the Ingress Controller manages internal routing. Together, they create a layered architecture for flexible traffic management.
What is cheaper: a Load Balancer or an Ingress Controller?
Ingress Controllers are generally more cost-effective since multiple services can share one external IP. Load Balancers often incur higher cloud costs, primarily when used on a per-service basis.