Citrix ADC alternatives and competitors

Mostly I support my clients in relation to the product.

I am very satisfied with the product overall. 

There is never a big number of false positives or false negatives. That's the most valuable aspect of the product. 

The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system.

The user interface and GUI are very good.

I find the product to be very stable. I've supported customers for two years and haven't really had an issue with the solution.

I can't say that there are any features missing. I've overall been quite happy with it.

We once had an issue related to trying to publish some exchange application to a file and we experienced some problems there, however, the incident was not really related to BIG-IP. It was likely some kind of infrastructure problem the company was experiencing.

We haven't had any big problems of note.

Technical support could be faster. It's something I'd like to see them work on in the future.

The pricing could be more reasonable.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point. 

The solution is extremely stable. We haven't had an issue in years. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. It's reliable.

Most of our clients are medium-sized entities.

For the one customer I typically deal with, there has been no need to scale or expand services. The product can be scaled by adding more licenses if necessary. That said, our clients have everything they need and have not actually done this. 

There are also add-ons that come from the ASM if a company is interested in that.

Technical support is slow and it could be faster. I had one issue once that was not very serious as it was on the Disaster Recovery Site. We were able to pull a previous version from a snapshot. However, the issue was that I was able to solve the problem myself before I even heard back from technical support. If they knew their technology, how is it that I could solve the problem faster as a person that's not as familiar with it? They need to be much faster. It could have been a much bigger problem. 

I'd say, overall, we aren't satisfied with the technical support for that reason.

I did not previously use a different product. This is my first Application Delivery Consult Solution.

The initial setup is very complex. The basic setup may be fine, however, right now I'm trying to do something in my lab environment. We've tried a few things over the years and it hasn't gotten any easier.

The costs could be lower. In a report, we found that Citrix Solutions are somehow cheaper - including in relation to encryption licensing. I cannot compare as I haven't spoken to Citrix. I don't know if it's easier or has the same (or more features). That said, I wouldn't describe this product as cheap. 

We're currently comparing F5 to Citrix. I'm not currently working with Citrix; I'm curious to see how they compare to each other. I had a presentation to a client and they just wanted some sort of comparison, which is why I began to look at Citrix.

We are resellers.

I'm a System Integrator. I have experience in virtual environments and with clients. I have some moderate experience with implementation and some bigger experience in supporting this product. I'm not an expert in the field, however, I'm trying to be.

I don't have any issues with the solution. It's pretty problem-free in general. Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

We use our devices as virtual load balancers for Exchange 2016, primarily.

We have two sites with two LMs at each site in clusters. We also use the devices as global DNS services and reverse proxy/authentication servers for our external users.

Our services are primarily Microsoft products being served. These include Exchange, SharePoint, CRM Dynamics, Skype, and ADFS. We are also looking at implementing websites in the future as required.

SSL offloading is enabled. Our devices are set up in the network as well as the DMZ.

With Kemp, I have been able to implement a global DNS load balancer between two sites for internal and external users with our existing Exchange DAG setup. This has made DR and BCP much easier to manage.

Our previous setup used Microsoft's TMG solution, and when that went end of life we needed to figure out a replacement. Being able to use load balancing, SSL offloading, and Edge Security Packages, all in one service, made my life much easier to manage from a day to day and single pane of glass perspective.

ESP gives us peace of mind because it has taken over from Microsoft's Threat Management Gateway (reverse proxy) solution. It also alerts us if there are attempted security breaches so that we can be sure we are safe.

The DNS Load Balancer makes it so that I don't have to worry about site failures. As it manages both our external DNS and internal DNS queries, we can failover to the individual sites as required. This is true for site failures as well as planned maintenance. 

We also use the Kemp 360 Vision, which monitors our services from an external perspective and alerts us via SMS and email, so I know if things go down. 

We experienced a brief period of instability.

We have been using Kemp LoadMaster for six years.

I have only had an issue with the solution once in terms of stability. The issue was not an end user-visible issue, and upgrading the O/S fixed the issue right away.

I beleive it's scalable because I can always upgrade my licensing to a unit that handles more requests. 

Service is great, easy to work with, and always responsive.

Prior to Kemp LoadMaster, we used end-of-life products from Microsoft.

The initial setup is straightforward, due to Kemp's support services and available templates and documentation.

We completed the setup in-house.

I believe it is high due to the many services that the solution has been able to provide.

From a cost perspective, Kemp is very competitive and is not hard to justify by any means.

We looked at Citrix Netscaler as well as a solution by A10 Networks.

My advice is to use Kemp's support to help with the initial setup. It is included in the initial cost and it makes sure that best practices are used. Keep up with the support because it's worth it.

I am currently happy with everything.

In our experience, Loadbalancer.org is best suited for small businesses looking to balance their website. They don't require HA, DR, or anything else.

Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix. In some cases, our customers do not have an engineer on staff who can support this device.

These customers have a large number of Linux engineers but don't have the money. We suggested using Loadbalancer.org and other open-source tools. Many customers are of different sizes and have different budgets.

Loadbalancer.org has everything that is needed.

The price could be reduced. 

Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced.

I last used Loadbalancer.org three years ago, but I deploy this solution for our clients.

I am also working with F5, Kemp, Barracuda, Cisco, and NGINX.

The last time that I used Barracuda was three to five years ago.

We used F5 Big-IP with some customers and deployed it to others.

It is easy to deploy Loadbalancer.org.

Loadbalancer.org is an open-source solution, with additional costs, however, in some cases, the price remains the same. It is dependent on the customer and what discounts F5 has given.

Loadbalancer.org is based on open-source products, but it requires money for support and other activities.

I would recommend this solution for small businesses with limited resources and do not have complicated requirements.

I would rate Loadbalancer.org an eight out of ten.