We performed a comparison between Citrix Gateway, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), and SonicWall SMA based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Citrix, SonicWall, Cisco and others in Universal Access Gateways."The solution is scalable."
"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."
"The initial setup is simple."
"It's easy to use. Also, the deployment part is perfect."
"It is easy to set up and is stable. It is scalable as well, depending on the model."
"Citrix Gateway is stable once I am connected."
"The initial setup is simple. Normally with all setups, it's not very complicated. It really depends on the customer."
"Most of our customers are using the load balancing feature and also the verification feature is good as well, in my experience."
"F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution."
"The support from F5 BIG-IP LTM is good."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"Good application firewall."
"The stability is excellent."
"LTM's most valuable features include application security, data collection, and parameter-level rules."
"Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"It is faster than other security options when using remote connections."
"I like the load balancing capability."
"The performance is good."
"Secure Mobile Access (SMA) is easy to configure and the deployment is straightforward. However, this is mostly because of the AWS setup."
"I am very satisfied with the technical support."
"The solution is reliable and has good overall performance."
"What I like best about SonicWall SMA is the relationship between its features and its price, because the solution is both affordable and functional."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is they have IT consultants that know SonicWall."
"Sometimes the input-output has issues."
"If the solution had a more advanced DNS, it would be an improvement."
"We are currently looking at automation. It would be good if there is some way to automate it in a fast way. It should be easy to automate. It also has some security issues."
"While connectivity is not something that is under Citrix's control, if the connectivity is spotty, it can be difficult."
"Its interface could be made a lot easier. It is very kludgy."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Citrix Gateway could improve the speed of the VPN. I sometimes have to wait for 10 to 15 minutes to get connected and other times when I am connected I have to abort, and reconnect."
"As Citrix Gateway is a third party solution, we wish to have one which is more integrated and involves less administration."
"The cost of the solution is pretty high. It would be ideal if it was more reasonable."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"F5 could improve the rule-setting capabilities in the GUI, and they need to simplify web management. For example, the menus in the Citrix GUI are easier to navigate, with a clean structure and layout."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface."
"There are some aspects of F5 BIG-IP that could be improved, the main one being virtual machine support. We have seen that even with the virtual editions, there are some things that we would like to do that are currently not possible with virtual machines."
"It would possibly help to get more training, even better in local languages."
"They need to improve the interface and some of the functionalities."
"Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing."
"SonicWall's reporting isn't good. Reports should be part of a data plan. The login mechanism should be improved. It would be helpful if the client could use an agent to log in. An agent-server model would improve the performance of the RDB, which consumes a lot of bandwidth."
"The only thing that they could try to improve is the support for enterprise customers. Normally enterprises and SMBs can create a ticket, but for enterprises, SonicWall SMA needs to provide a global view, and this is what's currently missing. It's not even a question of timing. It's a question of the global vision because currently, it's lacking. They concentrate on the topic, but not on the means and not on the global picture. In most cases, there's something wrong with the integration of SonicWall SMA with other products, so that could also be improved."
"The problem is that when combined with what the client already has, there are two different logins and two different management systems, and these should be consolidated into a single interface."
"SonicWall SMA is difficult to use and it does not provide easy access to different parts of the network."
"User interface could be improved."
"Enhancing live tracking capabilities could improve the product, particularly in monitoring user activity and request statuses in real-time on the web interface."
"The overall menu is not very user-friendly and it could be easier."
"The timed synchronization between the network appliance needs improvement."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
