Citrix NetScaler Reviews

There are two major verticals for Citrix: VDI and NetScaler. For NetScaler, our major use cases are database load balancing, PowerVPN VPN access gateway, WAF (Web Application Firewall), and content switching. But most of them are for load balancing, access gateway, and VPN for NetScaler.

And for VDI, the major use cases are definitely securing the data and centralizing the entire infrastructure to the data center. Another major use case is publishing in-house applications for end-users who are working from home or from remote locations.

Our organization doesn't use it because we're very small. However, we have deployed the service for more than 10,000 users. Our smallest customer had 25 users, and the biggest customer had over 10,000 users.

We have eight people in the maintenance team for Citrix NetScaler, plus 24/7 customer support for day-to-day issues. They are managing multiple customers. Their expertise is at the level of RL1, three at RL2, one at L3, and one at L4.

For VDI, centralization, data protection, and data management are the most important features. As for NetScaler, its key features include a firewall, GSLB, load balancing, and an actual gateway. These are the four tiers of NetScalers.

Pricing is one area for improvement. It's on the higher side because NetScaler is a premium product used for over 70% of internet traffic worldwide. However, price is not the only concern. Manageability and adaptability can also be challenging for end customers, who may require the assistance of experts like us to deploy and manage the product effectively. Although this is good for us as partners, it can limit the product's appeal to customers who prioritize ease of use.

Moreover, having some GUI-based tools for log management and troubleshooting would be helpful and make it easier for customers to manage and troubleshoot their databases.

For the future release of Citrix NetScaler, I would like to see better pricing, as well as improved manageability and log management features.

Another thing is if a problem occurs, we have to rely on the central support system. We need to collect the log and send it back to support for analysis, and then Citrix support will provide the solution. It would be much easier to troubleshoot if something is handy, such as a web portal or a common platform where customers can upload logs and resolve some of the issues automatically.

I have been working with Citrix for over twelve or fifteen years, so I know everything about Citrix. We are using the latest update of this product.

It is a rock-solid solution, and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Previously, their support was great, especially two years ago. But these days, I'm seeing lots of slowness in providing solutions. The L1 support team is not ready, or the L2 team has a lot of work and is overburdened.

Therefore, sometimes they are very good and sometimes slow in responding, resulting in slow solution delivery.

Neutral

The deployment process is quite complex because it's a premium or tier-one product. It requires great knowledge and experience to make it easier. If you don't have the necessary knowledge and experience, you may struggle.

Moreover, the deployment process depends on the customer's requirements and priorities. If the customer is focusing on multiple options or use cases, it may take seven to ten days. But if it's a straightforward installation with only one solution, then two or three days is more than enough.

We are using both on-premises and cloud-based versions.

We have a good team of ten people in India, and we are expanding our partnerships all over the world. We have even received orders from the USA. We are focusing more and more on the interaction market and are not looking to hire any consultants or other sources. Our company is the SI (system Integrator) for the product.

It's a good investment tool. If your own organization or any other organization invests in this product, it will be useful for their product line. This product is robust and reliable, which helps customers a lot.

The cost of the product depends on the customer's requirements, so there is no fixed price. There are multiple licensing models. There are no additional costs for using this product. It comes with a support bundle, and the licensing is subscription-based. It means that you have to pay on a yearly basis.

Citrix can be quite expensive, and it can be challenging to qualify or close leads for 50 users or less than 100 users. Therefore, we are considering evaluating multiple products in parallel and finalizing one product we can pitch in our product line.

I would recommend using Citrix. Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten because every product has room for improvement. If I rated it a nine, it means there's almost no room for improvement, which is not entirely true. So, eight is a fair rating.

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.

Our organization uses Citrix NetScaler for application load balancing, global server load balancing, and web application firewall. We also use its gateway feature for remote connectivity.

The web application firewall is one feature I found valuable in the solution.

I feel that Citrix NetScaler's customer support needs to improve. Basically, I want the customer support team to be more customer friendly.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler for more than ten years. Presently. I am using the latest version of the solution.

Citrix NetScaler is amazing when it comes to the stability it provides to its users. So, if we just configure the solution and leave it as it is, it can run for years without needing maintenance work. We never got into any trouble with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. In our organization, more than 1000 people are using the solution. Since most of the services are already delivered by Citrix ADC, the solution is being used 24/7 by the people in our organization.

Previously, we had contacted the solution's technical support team a couple of times. The technical support team was responsive and willing to help us whenever we contacted them. I rate the solution's technical support team a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward. The solution's deployment process probably took around two to three days.

The department process is simple since one just needs to get the device, connect it to their network, and make the required configurations.

Only a network administrator from the network operations team is required to deploy and maintain the solution.

The solution's implementation process was carried out with the help of a reseller.

Using the solution, I have seen a return on investment.

The solution offers subscription-based licenses. Price-wise, I feel that the solution is a little bit expensive. But it is really worth the money.

I would tell those planning to use the solution that it is worth the money. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Citrix NetScaler for policy URLs for web applications and RDP for Windows servers.

Reducing the content searching to publishing your web application, the OTP for two-factor authentication is the most valuable feature of NetScaler.

I wanted to use most features of NetScale, like the Web Application Firewall, but I need to learn how to use it. When we want to use OTP for two-factor authentication, it first appears on the authentication page where we can put the credentials. Then, we are directed to the application page and type the credentials again. But we want to use the OTP and access the web application without typing the credentials again. Typically, if we have an issue in the configuration and ask for a support request, that support doesn't help. They only talked about new implementations and charged me for it.

The customers needed help but did not find the web useful for the tool.

The technical support could be better. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed. And most of the time, I finished fixing the problem by looking on the internet or by finding documents about the problem on Google.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler for seven years.

It is a stable solution. It crashed only once, four years ago. We're using the DSLD configuration with two load balancers, two carriers, and two ISPs.

The technical support is bad. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed.

I rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

Previously, I used Microsoft TMG but then switched to NetScaler since it is a better solution.

The initial setup was complex initially. The first time it took about six months to be deployed. But it's straightforward now and takes only a couple of hours. Around four to five people were needed to complete the deployment.

It was implemented through an in-house team.

There is a return on investment using the solution.

The solution is undoubtedly very good, but it is expensive.

My experience with the support is not good. Owing to its poor technical support, I rate the solution seven out of ten.

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.