Citrix Gateway Reviews

As Citrix Gateway is a third party solution, we wish to have one which is more integrated and involves less administration. We want one which would allow access with a single click and only require RDP and the clicking of a single icon. 

The solution is stable. 

Tech support is not that great. Whenever an issue arises, it takes them time to respond and they do so via email. This is something we do not like. 

The initial setup is not straightforward at all. I feel it to be complex and unclear. 

The reason we were comparing Citrix Gateway to other solutions is to ensure that a VPN can be used on a desktop, for third-party security reasons. 

We don't want a situation in which a person can connect to his desktop, but is forced to use our environment using Citrix Gateway. There is no need to use the solution if one wishes to utilize Cisco VPN for connecting to Azure via VDI or to remote the RDP into it. However, Citrix Gateway gives one a better picture of place. Its administration is a bit better and it makes the creation of videos easier and faster once it's set up. 

My advice to others who are contemplating using the solution is that going with Cisco is preferable, even though Citrix Gateway is a good product. 

Automation is important. At the moment, I am testing for ease of administration and, with the risk that ransomeware poses, for security. 

I rate Citrix Gateway as a six out of ten. 

In our environment right now, we are using NetScaler. We purchased two devices last year for our Citrix VDI environment, for load balancing and gateway features for VPN connectivity.

It is easy to set up and is stable. It is scalable as well, depending on the model.

Security enhancements could be made, and technical support could be improved.

Their VAS product should be more productive because right now, we are using other VAS solutions but not using this one.

Right now, the multi-factor authentication solution built-in with the product works, but it actually uses Google Authenticator, a third-party authenticator. I would like Citrix to launch their own authenticator-based software so that it will be more secure. It will be more personalized according to the requirements too. 

I've been working with Citrix Gateway for around two years.

The product has been stable so far.

It is scalable depending on the model you have. We have about 5,000 plus users in our company.

Technical support is quite good. Improvement is needed on the technical side, response time, and technical engineer support.

The initial setup was very easy.

The price could be lower.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Citrix Gateway at nine.

Our biggest, most consistent problem was renewing certificates. Otherwise, it works like it isn't even there. It's just a workhorse.

I'm pretty well settled on Citrix. They have the highest performing application on the planet, as far as I know.

Just creating that gateway to the storefront for Citrix is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us.

It's extremely complicated and it's not intuitive. The solution requires a lot of training to get going on it. I'm not sure that that's necessarily a critique on it. It may be more of a critique on me and my abilities with it, however, it isn't necessarily straightforward. It could stand for some improvement in that sense.

If there were wizards for standard deployments, that might be nice. If there were prompts for situations like trying to deploy one virtual server behind one virtual storefront where the how-to was explained, that would be great. Other than that, you have to get really deep in the gears and figure out which gear you need to move and what lever you've got to pull. It's complex.

I've used the solution as recently as three to six months ago. I have been using the solution off and on in one shape or form for probably eight years.

The solution is rock solid. The only problem I ever had with stability on any consistent basis was replacing certificates on a yearly or semi-yearly basis. Otherwise, it is great and extremely reliable.

The solution has a great ability to scale. That's not a problem at all on the solution.

Their help desk is reasonably good. However, without wizards, I can spend two hours on a technical support call just trying to figure out how to set something up. That's not a slight on their level of service; however, if the solution made a few design tweaks, it would mean I could spend less time calling them for assistance.

The initial setup was complex; it was not straightforward.

The deployment takes about one to two hours.

It's a very feature-rich device. You have to dial into the specifics of what you want to use. It's like a Swiss army knife. It's got a thousand different uses and you only have one or two that you want to use it for. You have figure out just how to set up for those one or two uses.

I have a good deal of experience with Citrix. They're sitting on top of the heap as far as I can tell. It's not just clout and name recognition, but the actual product and actual performance delivery are stellar. They've got it set far as I know.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution a solid nine out of ten. It's a pain to set up, however, once you've got that sorted, it's an extremely solid product.

We use Citrix NetScaler as a WAF gateway to protect web applications, with Multi-tenancy. We have also enabled SSLVPN ( Remote access ) and Mobile Device management on the same solution.

The features that we have found most valuable are the web app support and VPN. 

Citrix NetScaler is something that connects the deployment. To improve:

• The interface should be more user-friendly.
• Integration with other applications must improve.
• They should provide training videos. 
• The product needs to have a good dashboard.
  

It's too early to say how the product can improve because I just implemented it. 

The dashboard or interface should be more clear in reporting issues. Integration with other applications should be more user-friendly.

I would rate the stability of Citrix Netscaler an eight out of 10.

I would rate the scalability of Citrix Netscaler an eight out of 10.

We want Citrix to do their support level at a higher standard. They should provide some training videos for us.

We used Barracuda. We switched from Barracuda because Citrix offered better features and scalability.

The initial setup was complex to install. It took almost three weeks.

We used a reseller. Our experience with them was not bad. It was standard and issue-free.

The ROI will depend on the business model. 

We have an annual license.

We also evaluated F5 and Barracuda WAF.

I would recommend to other people to implement this product. Use Citrix Netscaler. It is 100%. Otherwise, I would give only a five or six out of 10 for the product.

We mainly use it to connect to one of our service products for clients in Melbourne, Australia. 

Compared to other VPNs, I didn't find much difference. It used to take a few seconds to connect, but once it was connected, it was reliable with no interruptions. That's the good thing about it. 

The initial connection could be faster. That handshake takes a few seconds sometimes. That could be better and improved upon. 

I've been using Citrix Gateway for about three months now.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten because of the flow and in establishing the connection. There is room for improvement here. 

For our use case, it was scalable. There were at least 25 end users using this solution from remote locations. And once the connection was established, there weren't any complaints.

I used the Cisco VPN a long time ago.

The setup was done by the client-side IT team. They did the remote login and set it up completely on my laptop. It was done in-house. No external consultants were involved.

It's quite secure, and it gets the job done.

I would definitely recommend it. The only thing is why the initial connection was slow. Either the infra team or the Citrix team can figure it out, that could be really helpful. But I have no clue. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The load balancing part is good.

The support provided is not satisfactory. Compared to other products, the WAF part is costly. There is no innovation in WAF. The solution lacks maturity. They should enhance their cloud capabilities, LB, and develop a more efficient cloud-based WAF.

I have been using Citrix as a customer for six years.

We cater the solution to medium and large businesses.

When you call their support number, customer service takes longer than usual when you call their support number, especially during or after working hours. Sometimes, if you call them after working hours in the evening, it might take around 30-45 minutes to connect you with an engineer, so there is a waiting time. The existing engineers seem less experienced than those five years ago. They often ask us to involve other support vendors and take significant time to troubleshoot the issue.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and takes a few minutes to complete. Once you get the product properly, everything is installed in it. The upgrade is very smooth.

Compared to other products, WAF is more costlier than LB, but in Citrix, LB is more expensive than WAF. We have a yearly subscription. You may get a discount if you go for three years. There is an additional cost for support, and the license covers only VM.

The solution’s maintenance is easy. One person is enough to maintain the solution.

Citrix is a good solution for basic load balancing. It may require highly skilled resources to manage it effectively. It should be scalable on the cloud. With the increasing shift towards the cloud, cloud capabilities could be enhanced. There could be an improvement in the WAF part and cloud services optimization. Overall, it is a good product.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

I'm the general manager and CEO of the company. 

I like the very flexible configuration of Citrix. It's very useful for our regulations where we are able to log features and combinations. It offers a greater variety of features than any other gateway. 

Citrix Gateway has a lot of limitations, cloud limitations as a starting point. Microsoft should combine together and solve those problems. I can't go more than three GBDs whereas on AWS I can go to five GBD and get throughput. Here I'm not able to get into throughput, so I have to deploy multiple gateways to get to throughput and that's a bigger problem.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The solution is stable and they are currently upgrading. We identified two bugs that have now been fixed. 

The solution is scalable and we have one or two people responsible for maintenance. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. If it's a complex configuration, deployment might take one week, otherwise it should just be a day or two. 

I highly recommend this product for any type of organization.

I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

It is our application filtering and gateway portal for our Citrix end-users. We have its most recent version.

It adds great security to your outfacing information.

It is pretty full-featured. There are a lot of things that you can do with this. It is amazing what it can do.

Its interface could be made a lot easier. It is very kludgy.

Its initial setup could be easier.

I have been using this solution for quite a few years.

Out Citrix team deals with it, and there are three people who work on it.

Their tech support is extremely good. I haven't heard of any issues with their tech support.

It is complex and could be easier. It took us about two weeks to deploy.

We used a consultant. They were good. They knew the product.

It costs about 4,000 a year.

I would advise others to definitely go through somebody who knows the product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.