NetScaler Reviews

I use Citrix NetScaler as a gateway to provide secure access to virtualized desktops and applications.

Citrix NetScaler offers robust security features, including SmartAccess and customizable policies, making it a reliable choice for safeguarding user data. The seamless integration with Citrix tools enhances both performance and security, creating a powerful combination for optimal IT environments.

There is room for improvement regarding the pricing policy for Citrix offices. In the past, the gateway was cost-effective, but there has been a shift, and the current pricing seems too high.

I have been working with Citrix NetScaler for many years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as an eight out of ten.

Tech support for NetScaler can be frustrating. When opening a case, I often spend much time with first-level support, who sometimes lack programming knowledge. The process involves repeating details when the case is escalated to an engineer which causes delays. Overall, I would rate the support as a three out of ten.

Neutral

Before using Citrix NetScaler, I had experience with similar products. I recall working with Citrix Gateway for server access, but it involved a server running an application on a Windows server. I have also dabbled a bit with other vendors like F5 for feature integration. However, integrating with Citrix has been challenging as they are not very open to external integrations.

The solution is quite expensive. Regular security audits reveal frequent vulnerabilities, requiring monthly patches.

Overall, I would rate Citrix NetScaler as a seven out of ten.

We use the product for load balancing and as a reverse proxy solution.

The tool's pricing is a pain point since we have many cheaper alternatives. 

I have been working with the solution for five years. 

I rate Citrix ADM's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. 

Citrix ADM has a good tech support. 

Neutral

I rate the solution's deployment an eight out of ten, and was straightforward. It was completed in three weeks. 

Our customers are mostly medium enterprises. 

I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I rate Citrix ADM a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution for screening access, so certain people have access to certain applications. It's a good solution to deliver applications to users who are located in geographically distinct locations. The product means you can have control and still deliver the applications. We have a partnership with Citrix and I'm technology vice president. 

I like that the solution can be made available on any device and can be accessed on a wide area network - it allows for better performance for technology applications.

The process itself could be improved by making it more flexible because it has become really complicated to deploy. Implementing the application delivery mechanism model system has become more difficult over time and more complicated to handle.

I would like to see a simplification of initials. 

I've been using this solution for a very long time, since it was first established. 

It's a stable solution. 

It's a scalable solution. 

Technical support is average, sometimes response times are a little slow.

Deployment takes quite a lot of planning and the cost of implementation is based on the number of users. You need to have clarity about the architecture to get an idea of how long deployment will take.  

If a company wants to have a secure environment and they want the performance then this is a good solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We're using NetScaler for compression and optimization features.

Most of the functions are user-friendly and great. We also have mobile features that are simple but effective.

There are some drawbacks, such as using EUG for certain configurations. It could definitely be improved. Moreover, compression features could be better since it uses too much CPU and is not very effective.

In terms of additional functionality, the capture feature could be improved to make it easier to use, and schedules could also be better for me.

I have been using this solution for eight years. 

There are nine users in our organization using this solution. It is a stable solution within this capacity. Sometimes we faced bugs, but in general, it hasn't affected the general usage.

If you use the latest version, it is quite a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability of NetScaler an eight out of ten. 

We've had poor experiences with customer support partners in the past two years. If some company changes, it's a bad thing. The customer support is not good for us. It is not helpful as well as have very slow response time. 

The initial setup is actually very simple.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would definitely recommend using the solution.

We used it mainly for GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). It was the intelligent DNS service.

I found that the GUI was very easy to to navigate. If you were looking for something, it was fairly easy to find. There's a lot of third-party documentation and information available online as well.

Citrix should offer a demo or free-trial version of NetScaler. Several other vendors do, but Citrix does not.

Pricing should also be more readily available.

We deployed Citrix NetScaler in 2018, and I've worked with it for four years.

In the four years I was working on it, we didn't have a single incident. There were no crashes or abnormal behavior. We found it to be very stable.

We didn't have any issues with scalability.

I've contacted technical support once, and their response was timely. There were no issues.

I found the initial setup to be very easy.

Citrix NetScaler's pricing is slightly above average but not overly expensive. I would consider F5 BIG IP to be the most expensive, Citrix NetScaler to be the second most expensive, and then Kemp Load Balancer to be the third.

I am really happy with Citrix NetScaler in terms of the stability and user-friendliness of the user interface. It's easy to set up as well, and I'd rate it at nine out of ten.

The primary use case is for troubleshooting how users are experiencing the Citrix environment.

The most valuable features are for the ADMs and the overall monitoring environment.

I would like to see the virtual and desktop license included in the pricing.

I have been working with Citrix ADM for a number of years.

I have found the scalability to be acceptable.

The initial setup was straightforward and simple. The installation took about an hour.

I did the installation in-house.

The pricing could be lower. The actual device itself is included in the license, so the fact that you have to license virtual machines on it is the price point that could be lower.

I would rate Citrix ADM an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Citrix ADC is primarily used for load balancing exchange and other internal IT systems.

It is simple for both IT specialists and customers. With other products, we cannot leave the customer untrained. We can leave the customer during the early stages using Citrix ADC.

The stability of Citrix ADC needs to be improved.

The technical support could be improved. They do not respond or assist customers in a timely manner.

I have been working with Citrix ADC for approximately eight years.

It is typically deployed on-premises, but it is occasionally deployed on a hybrid cloud.

There have been many crashes since the last build.

Citrix ADC is easy to scale.

Technical support is different in every situation. In one case it went very well and quickly other cases it took longer.

Technical support could improve, but it is possible that my issue was complicated.

I am also working with F5, Kemp, Barracuda, Cisco, and NGINX.

Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix. In some cases, our customers do not have an engineer on staff who can support this device.

These customers have a large number of Linux engineers but don't have the money. We suggested using Loadbalancer.org and other open-source tools. Many customers are of different sizes and have different budgets.

The installation is simple for both manual configuration and automatic deployment.

Our company is partners with Citrix and F5 BIG-IP.

I would rate Citrix ADC an eight out of ten.

This solution acts as my web server, web application server, firewall, and load balancer. I also use it for IPSec 4 to IPSec 6 conversion.

The most valuable feature is load balancing. This solution will do both global and local load balancing.

The WAF features are very helpful.

The WAF component needs to be simplified so that it is easier to use.

In the next release, I would like to see more firewall policy support.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler VPX for about five years.

There are a few bugs here and there, but technical support has been able to assist with them.

This solution is easy to scale if we have up to ten servers, but much higher and we need to use a different level of license. It is a little bit expensive.

We have approximately 2,000 users.

I am quite satisfied with the technical support.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I installed this solution with the help of my own team.

Our licensing fees including technical support are approximately $3,500 USD.

We evaluated a solution by F5, but we found it to be a little complex and we didn't proceed with it.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that it works best for small-scale industry. I would recommend this for a small business, but not for larger organizations. It works quite well for 1,000 or 2,000 users, but I would not recommend more than that.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.