Citrix NetScaler Reviews

The solution is used primarily for load balancing and content switching, but we also use it for VPN, SSL VPN, and ICA Proxy. One of the bigger use cases that comes up often is web application firewalling and security. There's a lot of growth in our clients' environments at the moment. There's also significant regulatory compliance required and we deploy ADC with multifactor authentication to have a layer of protection for our customer information. We are partners of Citrix and resellers of this solution. 

The web application firewalling component is probably the most powerful feature as it can identify attacks on the network at an application level which is quite important. There is also good functionality where we use IP reputation and geofencing to mitigate threats from the outside world.

Citrix can improve their quality assurance by ironing out security vulnerabilities before releasing upgrades. They are quite proactive in identifying vulnerabilities, but it would be helpful if they could identify them prior to release. The support on the ADCs isn't that great and there's a lot of work required with upgrading plant environments because of security vulnerabilities that come to light. I'd also like to see some improvement on the monitoring side. Things are better than they were but the interface can be a little cumbersome sometimes. It's not always easy to get the information that you're looking for.

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

Stability is pretty good. Our company has logged perhaps one or two calls for stability issues, but they have generally related to environment variables that are outside our control.

Scaling up or out is fairly straightforward. Based on the software license, we can unlock additional capacity, functionality and throughput purely by installing a higher-rated license. From an upgrade point of view, it's not a case of ripping and replacing hardware every so often, the solution is fairly robust in that sense.

Complexity of the initial setup depends on the use case. It can be fairly straightforward depending on what you're trying to achieve, but the more complex deployments are, of course, more complicated. Depending on the use case, deployment can take anywhere from a day to a couple of weeks. On the web application firewalling side, it can take some time, but standard ICA proxy, SSL, VPN, load balancing, and content switching, are fairly straightforward to get up and running quickly. We have 15 users in our company.

Licensing depends on your environment and the size and scale of the deployment. There are options to purchase a standard, advanced or premium license, each of which unlocks different feature sets and capabilities. We also have a throughput license that ties into that, whether it's 20, 100 or 200 megs. It really depends on the environment. If I look at competitors such as F5, the costs and functionalities we offer are the same but at a much-reduced cost.

Whether this is a suitable solution depends on what the client's trying to achieve, the type of applications they want to publish, and the security metrics they're looking at. We provide predominantly Citrix-based solutions so if there is a use case, we would definitely recommend Citrix, not only because of its functionality, but because that's our specialization. We implement the full stack of Citrix solutions.

Because of the functionality, scalability and stability of the solution as a whole, I rate ADC eight out of 10. 

We use it for web applications, firewalling, EDOS protection, load balancing, and content switching. There are quite a lot of use cases that we use it for. It just depends on what the client requires. It's a multi-purpose software.

It's a well-rounded, well-featured product that is quite flexible in terms of covering quite a lot of use cases depending on the client's environment.

It's quite a competitive solution if you compare it to others. It's one of the market leaders in terms of functionality and features.

It's a stable product.

The solution can scale.  

Technical support could be improved. 

I've used the solution for seven years or so. 

It's a stable product. I'd rate its reliability eight out of ten. There are few bugs, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is fine. I'd rate its ability to scale ten out of ten. 

We aren't fully satisfied with technical support at this time. We'd like them to have a faster response time. Sometimes those responding to requests aren't technical enough, and the case needs to be passed through to someone else. 

Neutral

We did not previously use a different solution. 

How long the solution takes to deploy depends on what features are deployed. The deployment of the VPN and general balancing stuff doesn't take too much time. However, if you are looking at web applications and/or firewalling, it can get a bit more complex. The implementation will take longer. 

I'd rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. There are some complex configurations, however, it isn't something that we generally can't handle ourselves. 

The initial setup is usually done by our team. We would usually reach out to the vendor for support in the case of a bug or something like that.

I'm not involved in licensing aspects of the solution and cannot speak to the exact cost of the product. 

There is only a licensing fee. There aren't any extra costs attached.

We did not previously evaluate other options. We use Citrix a lot. It's our bread and butter. 

We're Citrix partners. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

We have multiple implementations of the product, including on the cloud and on-premises. When we use the cloud version, we use Azure and AWS. 

I'd rate the product nine out of ten. 

We are only using it for load balancing and application firewalls.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its load balancing.

Citrix ADC is actually not the most preferable product from our perspective but for the virtual desktop use it is very efficient. It's very integrated with the virtual desktop. It has a seamless integration and that is the most valuable part.

Since it has a significant integration with its virtualization, that has improved the usability access of the virtual desktops.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated.

In the next release, I would like to see advanced language support for managing the traffic, rather than only the RegEx. That would be helpful.

I have been using Citrix ADC for about five years.

In terms of stability, it is not as good as F5. 

It is not as scalable as F5.

There are three people using it, and they're all engineers.

It takes one staff member for the deployment and maintenance - also an engineer.

We have a static user base in our organization, but for our customer base its use is going to be expanded.

The technical support is not bad.

We are using most of the solutions together, so there is no switching between the products. We are currently using F5, too, and we always prefer that first. But it depends on the deployment and it depends on the needs. For deployments we choose Citrix.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took two hours.

Our strategy is just deploy and use it. It's a simple process for us.

We are the integrators.

If they are going to use it with the VDI, it is a very good product, but it has weaknesses in application firewall development. So if they are going to only do load balancing in an SMB solution, it is a good product. But if they're consulting as an enterprise product and in a very large scale deployment enterprise, Citrix is not a complete solution. But for an SMB product and a basic cloud balance, it is a good product.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Citrix ADC a seven. It does what it does. It is a product for some simple tasks, but just not suitable for the complex tasks.

We have published our applications via Citrix and then given access to the business users to access those specific applications via Citrix. We have many applications where multiple users need access - whether it's an EVS or a CRM, all these have been published to Citrix. We also use the solution for the ADC. ADC is a front end, wherein I get queries, and we'll get all the requests from internal and external users as well.

The solution is easy to use. It's very easy to configure. The solution is not very difficult.

Performance-wise it's okay. The solution is stable. 

The solution is easy to set up and the deployment process is quite fast.

The solution could be more secure. 

I've used the solution for four or maybe five years.

The solution is quite stable and the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The stability is good.

We have about 3,000 users on this solution. The product can scale. 

We are in constant touch with Citrix support. We get a good resolution from them. I'd say that we are quite satisfied with the level of support they provide. 

I also worked with F5. We used it for a couple of years.

The setup process is not overly complex or difficult. The installation should not take more than three to five hours so long as you have the right information on hand. 

Since the solution is straightforward and stable, we only need three or four engineers to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We handled the installation ourselves. We did not need outside help from consultants or integrators. We're capable of handling everything in-house.

There is a licensing fee, and we pay it once a year.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been very happy with its capabilities.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

Citrix ADC is deployed on our VMware cluster. We use Citrix ADC for Virtual Virtual Desktop Infrastructure(VDI), load balancing, and SSL offloading.

The most valuable feature of Citrix ADC is its ease of use.

Citrix ADC can improve if it provides a more user-friendly interface and clear working protocols. Citrix is not working with classic RFC, it is working with Citrix RFC, which is not common in the world. If engineers of Citrix can provide us with more information on working with the classic IP networks it would be a benefit.

I have been using Citrix ADC for approximately three years.

The stability of Citrix ADC is not working well. We have one cluster of firewalls and the firewall can switch from active mode to standby mode, but in active mode, Citrix is not recognizing the ARP or MAC address. When the ARP lease timer ends it is working properly again.

We have approximately 10,000 users using Citrix ADC.

The main IT and network security departments are using this solution the most.

I wrote many emails about the lease ARP timer problem we were facing to Citrix, but they did not respond to my question.

I have previously used F5 BIG-IP. Citrix is more user-friendly and scalable for engineers for doing configuring. The dashboards and interface are better in Citrix ADC than F5 BIG-IP.

I found Citrix ADC the better solution.

The initial setup of Citrix ADC is easy. I have been doing it for many years.

We have 10 network engineers that do the configuration and maintenance of Citrix ADC.

F5 BIG-IP is much more expensive than Citrix ADC. For example, If we choose two platforms, Citrix ADC, 3000 version, and we choose F5, F4200 version. F5 BIG-IP has connections, timers, and throughput similar to Citrix ADC, but the price is very expensive.

Citrix ADC is scalable.

I recommend Citrix ADC to all of my friends and engineers.

I rate Citrix ADC a nine out of ten.

Compared to other solutions, Citrix ADC is much more robust in terms of the native integration to cloud platforms. It is far more robust from an operational point of view as well.

Their support is also pretty good.

Native integration needs to be improved. You cannot build ISE codes natively. For DevOps, integration would be very helpful because it would be a lot simpler from an operational standpoint.

The initial configuration needs to be rearchitected because of the limitations that are present with the cloud. It would be good if these limitations could be removed.

Improving the scalability would be really good as well.

I've worked with it for a few years.

It's primarily a cloud solution.

It is a stable solution.

The on-demand scalability options are not good.

The technical support from Citrix is good.

The initial setup is straightforward if your enterprise requirements are very simple. However, this is usually not the case, and then, the configurations are not straightforward.

It takes approximately two days to set it up. You would need a team of six, including engineers and senior tech leads.

There isn't much of a difference between the cost of Citrix and that of other similar solutions.

In terms of capability, Citrix ADC is much better than F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

Stability-wise, it's also much better than F5, but feature-wise, it's exactly the same. 

Technical support-wise, Citrix ADC is far better than F5.

My recommendation would strictly be to look forward to cloud native because of the operationality, scalability, and native integration in terms of the CI/CD pipeline or DevOps pipeline. It's quite easy if you do that.

Then, if you consider using third-party tools like Citrix ADC, know that there are problems with native integration.

In terms of capability, I would rate Citrix ADC at seven on a scale from one to ten.

We used this mostly for disaster recovery plan (DRP), for global service load balancing, and Citrix Access Gateway. 

What I found most valuable from Citrix ADC were the Content Switching and Integrated Caching features which were the things we commonly installed for our customers.

The only thing customers told me that could be improved is that they would like to be able to purchase and receive the products in one box, rather than two boxes. This is something related to marketing, though.

We were partners with Citrix for 15 years. We used it for 15 years.

I also found this solution to be stable.

I found it to be scalable.

Our customers' feedback was that support wasn't the best. Cases were often on queue and there were delays in solving their issues, leading to customers getting angry. Support could be improved.

I was able to try F5 and Radware. The price for Citrix ADC here in Mexico was good when you compare it with F5 and Radware.

The setup was easy. For the first version of this solution, it was not very user-friendly, but in the last edition we used, the setup was very user-friendly.

We implemented it for our customers through our in-house team of 3 consultants. I think 3 people is sufficient for implementing this solution to our customers.

I was able to evaluate F5 and Radware.

My rating for this solution is ten out of ten. I think it is the best product ever.

My recommendation is for customers here in Mexico to try it. I feel it is the best solution in the market, at least here in Mexico. My message to customers here is to try it and they'll never be disappointed with this magic box.

There's a very powerful content switching capability, load balancing capability, and SSL offloading, layer-to-firewall capabilities, routine capabilities, policies, and rewrite policy capabilities. So there are a lot of capabilities in this solution.

The most valuable feature is SSL offloading.

The solution can improve their support and send tickets directly to a Citrix ADC engineer in order to avoid having to escalate each support call.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable.

I think that the solution needs to be handled by a team of Citrix ADC engineers, not just a normal support desk. Every single time you log a support call, it has to be escalated anyway, so why not just give us direct access to the Citrix ADC engineers?

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward with some training. You can get the solution up and running out of the box, but training does help. Deployment can be completed in three days if you have all the bits and pieces in place. We use three technical engineers for deployment.

The deployment was completed in-house.

You can do CapEx and then a yearly monthly fee, or you can do a subscription model, whether that's one month, month-to-month, or three-year subscription model. I give the solution an eight out of ten for pricing.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We currently have 40 - 45 people using the solution.

I recommend using an integrator that knows what they're doing. You need to validate the integrator's capabilities.

I think it's a really, really solid, well-run, nice solution.