"The most valuable feature of Citrix ADC is its ease of use."
"The most valuable features are the VDA Delivery, Gateway Fort, and the load balancing."
"I find all of it to be valuable, because of the flexibility that is built into this product."
"Its flexibility, agility, and robustness are the most valuable. Its management and implementation are also quite easy."
"High availability, performance, and security are the main pillars. It enhances the security for accessing the applications."
"The load balancing feature and the fact that you can do context switching in the WAF are the most valuable. We majorly use it for load balancing, but we also use it for context switching in the WAF. It is also robust and very easy to work with and manage."
"I like the ease of use. It's easy to manage. I also like it's ease of use with virtualization technologies with applications."
"The most valuable features of Citrix ADC are load balancing and application firewall."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful."
"The most valuable feature is WAF."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"It does an excellent job of load balancing."
"The pricing is quite good."
"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."
"Overall the price of Citrix ADC could be more competitive."
"Its GUI should be improved. Its CLI is powerful, but GUI needs more features."
"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."
"Citrix ADC is a complex product, and it takes time to understand these things. But the documentation is poor, and the deployment is difficult. Integration could also be better because what I find is that you cannot easily integrate the panel in the second sector. What I have found is that in the last index, there is a limitation when getting validated. Technical support could also be better."
"It does not have a sandbox cloud service and antivirus. It should have on-prem or cloud sandboxing and antivirus."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The interface needs to be improved because the competition is coming up with ones that are more eye-catching, straightforward, and sophisticated."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"It is a bit tricky to configure. You've got to have a very specific format to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure. Mapping the certificates into it isn't easy, and it could be better. Currently, you've to write a bit of automation to pull certificates directly to HTTPS."
"The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible."
"It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix ADC is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 21 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 12 reviews. Citrix ADC is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Citrix ADC writes "A scalable and versatile solution that allows us to easily monitor and manage applications and publish to many devices". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". Citrix ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy, Avi Networks Software Load Balancer and Kemp LoadMaster, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, AWS WAF, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), F5 Advanced WAF and Imperva Web Application Firewall. See our Citrix ADC vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
