We performed a comparison between Citrix NetScaler and Kemp LoadMaster based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's very easy to configure."
"Global load balancing between data centers."
"The most valuable features are the VDA Delivery, Gateway Fort, and the load balancing."
"This solution allows the user to easily scale out application delivery, and provides secure remote access."
"It is a very stable solution."
"Load balancing, cache redirection, content switching, all connected with traffic management."
"One of the most beneficial features for application delivery is its integration with Citrix Storefront, facilitating user logins and ensuring continuity during data center outages."
"This solution increases the backend network service performance, which is one of the things that we like the most."
"With Kemp 360 Central, our customers get a nice overview of their Kemp products and an easy way to upgrade firmware on all devices from a single interface."
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"Using Kemp as a front-facing service appliance, it allows me to have the flexibility of swapping out real servers behind the scenes without any intervention from my network team."
"From my personal experience, many firewalls provide Load Balancing functionalities, but Kemp Loadmaster has a lot of features and functionalities like what you can configure. So there are a lot of features but we use only five percent of it."
"Managing and maintaining multiple servers is done in a single place."
"I like that this is a Network Load Balancer that can be used practically with any application in the backend. They have how-to guides on how to set up Kemp NLB with Exchange, but you can use it as well for Sharepoint, RDS, or any other back end server."
"Load-balancing is a great feature that is very easy to configure and it is always working fine."
"One of the most valuable features I like is the ability to block specific cipher suites like RC4, and older protocols like SSL 3.0."
"The vendor provides frequent patches, however, the security of the website has room for improvement."
"It can be difficult to setup."
"An area for improvement would be the difficulty in finding information about standard licensing costs over the internet. They should provide some reference prices on the net to be quickly referred to."
"Finding relevant documentation for learning NetScaler can be challenging, especially for beginners who prefer a web interface over command-line interfaces."
"It does not have a sandbox cloud service and antivirus. It should have on-prem or cloud sandboxing and antivirus."
"The solution should be able to scale more effectively than it does."
"I would like to see them make it easier to do some of the more complex things. For example, a web re-direct requires two pieces to it. You have two ports and when people want to go to a web page, they just type in the webpage that on the backend it will redirect them to a secure link. The initial setup of that is cumbersome because you have to do it twice. There are things that can be replicated. The IP address, for example, is the same. This change would go a long way. Don't make me do it twice and don't make me have to read tons of documentation to figure out how to do it. Ease of configuration for some of the more complex processes would be a good improvement."
"We face challenges with the solution's firmware upgrades frequently."
"Although Kemp is very user-friendly, it lacks a more custom configuration."
"In the next release, Kemp should include the ability for LoadMaster to create different DNS record types."
"If you want logging for SMTP traffic, you have to enable ESP, which requires you to define allowed IP addresses. That’s irritating, to say the least."
"I think there should be more visual instructions on how to configure advanced features."
"To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, that there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools."
"The configuration of the basic services is pretty straight forward but for more complex solutions, there needs to be better documentation or knowledge base articles."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"If I had to change something it would maybe be to have a little better reporting graphics that show more details in the reporting. It seems to be a little small in the graphic, and I'm not sure if possible but maybe a GUI page that one can use to monitor if any server goes down."
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Citrix NetScaler writes "Optimizing application delivery and ensuring robust network performance with its excellent stability and comprehensive load-balancing capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Citrix NetScaler is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Citrix NetScaler vs. Kemp LoadMaster report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
