We performed a comparison between Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiADC, and Loadbalancer.org based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."I find all of it to be valuable, because of the flexibility that is built into this product."
"The maintenance of the solution is not complex."
"The MAS integration for HDX Insight has provided teams with significant visibility into network performance of the user's connection."
"I like the ease of use. It's easy to manage. I also like it's ease of use with virtualization technologies with applications."
"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."
"I like app flows and custom flows. They integrate with multiple flows."
"The GSLB feature allows us to move services between data centers. We can do this in either a planned or unplanned manner. We have experienced service provider outages at our primary data center and GSLB will kick in to automatically modify DNS records to point to a secondary data center (active/passive). We also make use of GeoIP information to point clients to the closest data center for accessing applications."
"It is a very stable solution."
"TSL and SSL offloading are both very good features."
"The product has flexible and interesting licensing options."
"Content caching and content compression are good features."
"The main feature that we use is GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). GSLB makes the customer's network more reliable by scaling applications across multiple datacenters. GSLB as a disaster recovery solution can direct traffic based on site availability."
"The solution provides high-level services such as availability, redundancy, and load balancing between servers."
"The user interface is very easy and integrates with Sandbox easily."
"Key features include SSL Offloading, VM availability, and L7 load balancing."
"Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it."
"The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
"Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency."
"It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
"For now, it's stable."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"The performance is good."
"The solution should be able to scale more effectively than it does."
"Getting to use some of the advanced tools, even with the assistance of Citrix support, can be challenging."
"Citrix NetScaler has been recently acquired by another company and the support has been negatively impacted, the solution is at its end of life. The support for the solution could improve. The sales team needs to be improved."
"We would like to see some fairly large scale improvement in the configuration process for this solution."
"Citrix ADC can be really complex. It isn't very simple like some other appliances that I've worked with. You need a lot of skill and experience to manage it. I'm not talking about a year or two. You need at least four years to understand it very well. It is not that easy to learn. They should make it a lot simpler for users to understand the management of it. They can also provide some additional training. The material they have on the site is not sufficient enough for you to understand how to manage it. Their training is expensive, and not everyone has the funds and experience for it. Citrix isn't very popular around these parts of the world. So, it can use some more marketing, sales, enlightenment, and advertisement. These could bring more market for them. Basically, there are just a few companies that really go for Citrix. Most of the companies go for VMware because they marketed themselves more than Citrix. There isn't much difference between Citrix and VMware. VMware is a little more robust than Citrix. Citrix has focused more on desktops rather than server virtualization, and that's the advantage VMware has over Citrix. Citrix also needs to educate and inform users about the infrastructure that is supported with a version. Currently, if the customers don't look at the datasheet, they might miss this important information."
"Overall the price of Citrix ADC could be more competitive."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"I think there is always room for improvement in this type of solutions. For example, I think the GUI should be easy to understand."
"The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps."
"It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall."
"Technical support and documentation could both be improved."
"Setup could be easier. The company's homework is to redesign those menus to configure with the smallest number of steps."
"There is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle."
"Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale."
"The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva."
"I had a terrible experience with Fortinet support. I only used support once when I bought the solution. I got no response for two days. However, I believe that it's no longer the case. Fortinet solutions have problems when they're launched. For example, we had issues with Fortinet's authenticator when it came out. We also had trouble with FortiNAC in the beginning."
"An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
