We performed a comparison between Citrix ADC vs Microsoft Azure Application Gateway based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Users give a similar rating to both solutions. Each solution has an easy deployment, similar opinions on pricing, and good technical support. However, they differ in their strengths and weaknesses in terms of features.
"The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature."
"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)."
"I like the monitoring ability as it enables me to identify when an internal (load-balanced) resource is having issues before it becomes a problem in production."
"The best feature of Citrix is its track record of stability in its features."
"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."
"My customers have told me that the performance of this solution is good."
"Citrix NetScaler offers robust security features, including SmartAccess and customizable policies, making it a reliable choice for safeguarding user data."
"The solution is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF)."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled."
"Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort."
"The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share."
"There are certain features that are very useful and Citrix makes you pay a bit more for them."
"The solution is a bit more expensive than some of the available solutions in this region. One solution in particular that I noticed was cheaper was Kemp."
"Integration with other third party providers and third party applications could be better because it can be a bit complex at present."
"Maybe creating policies with simple regular expressions."
"The technical support could be improved. They do not respond or assist customers in a timely manner."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The tool needs to add a feature where we can access the network policy access manager."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them."
"It could be easier to change servicing."
"Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port."
"The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 38 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Citrix NetScaler writes "Simple implementation, reliable, and good dashboards". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "High stability with built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure". Citrix NetScaler is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy, Loadbalancer.org and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with Azure Front Door, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, AWS WAF and HAProxy. See our Citrix NetScaler 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.