We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Lightning ADC, Citrix NetScaler, and F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."Our clients appreciate that this is a security enabled solution."
"It allows you to secure the application while balancing the connections for many other customers, reducing CPU usage and server load."
"What I like about Lightning ADC, is that instead of having a big appliance sitting in front of the Kubernetes cluster, Lightning can pretty much go inside of Kubernetes."
"The solution is easy to work with and manage."
"Provides resiliency for applications that reside on servers, as well as connectivity to remote applications."
"It is the best product out there."
"Enables a Web service that offers persistent client-server connections, IP restriction, URL rewrite (such as remove "/assets/" path from client-side URL path), and cache for CSS or JS files... You can easily use the GUI to set up all these requirements on the same network device within 20-30 minutes. (If you do the same steps on CLI, it might take less time.)"
"Content Redirection and SSO integration with Citrix XenApp/XenDesktop. The GUI was wonderful."
"I like app flows and custom flows. They integrate with multiple flows."
"Manageability and visibility are good."
"NetScaler Gateway: Why? Availability/Security: We delivered more than 200 applications thru Xenapp. This feature give us the possibility to deliver the applications anywhere. Currently, 30% of access is made through our NetScaler Gateway (Internet connections)."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution."
"We are fond of the load balancing feature for DNS and servers."
"The solution is very easy to use and easy to understand. It's quite an intuitive system."
"The most valuable feature I found is iRules."
"The most valuable feature of F5 BIG-IP LTM is brand image and recognition and the application delivery controller."
"It is a very good, flexible solution. It helps us to catch up on flaws in our partner solutions on top of its load balancing feature."
"The capability is at a seven or eight out of ten."
"It integrates with AWS WAF, which makes it easy to deploy without changes to your infrastructure."
"A10 documentation is not as open and accessible as AWS and Azure documentation is."
"The support from A10 should be improved."
"We would like to see some improvement in the rapidity with which we can customize security facts within the solution."
"Improvements are needed to address the issue of machines becoming unregistered, ensuring stability for end users. Troubleshooting with Citrix support can be challenging, so clearer diagnostics would be beneficial. As for global server load balancing, it works well on-premises, depending on user volume and service stability. Overall, it's satisfactory for us."
"The security is okay, but the monitoring and reporting need improvement."
"The SLB could be better, and they should improve it."
"Too many bugs in the software and it's always difficult when you need to update."
"I feel that Citrix NetScaler's customer support needs to improve."
"I think there is always room for improvement in this type of solutions. For example, I think the GUI should be easy to understand."
"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."
"The customization has always been a key area where some improvements are required. In the beginning, everything was for customizing the outer shell of it. You had to use the command-based utility and you had to do a lot of manual work. They have improved it a little bit and now there are some GUI-based functionalities that can be used. However, more can be done that doesn't require a lot of intervention. Right now there are some features, there are some customizations that can be done, but it's still very tedious, very cumbersome, a lot of work. So that could be simplified."
"The one gap I saw was that pure LBN integration is a little tricky. The insertion of F5 in LBN is a little tricky. They need to work on something, on products by which they can insert F5 in any sort of cloud environment."
"The SharePoint SSO part has some room for improvement."
"There are issues with F5 BIG-IP but they are minor issues not affecting production and services. Sometimes the operations and the facility systems fail. However, there is an alert action from the windows. An ordeal for the manager."
"For integration with other AWS environments, we do some tie-ins with some autoscaling groups. This has been challenging for us. We have had issues, where when autoscaling groups scale up, there are some instances which are not showing up in the proper size. Then, those IPs would get registered with F5, but never get released. Therefore, we are ending up with a whole bunch of ghosted IPs."
"For a future release, I would like to see more features in the cloud."
"Its scalability and deployment should be better. It should be more scalable, and it should be easier to deploy."
"The UI could be improved."
"If they made it easier for engineers to get F5 training then it would be better."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
