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.
"One feature that works really well is the SSL VPN. It's very easy to set up and you can go very granular with it. You can define what user groups get what kind of access and the management overhead is very low."
"The solution was very easy to deploy."
"Provides resiliency for applications that reside on servers, as well as connectivity to remote applications."
"I would say the rewriting and redirection functions are must-have's for us."
"It is simple for both IT specialists and customers."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is load balancing."
"Load balancing, cache redirection, content switching, all connected with traffic management."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"It is a scalable solution...The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy."
"The only thing customers told me that could be improved is that they would like to be able to purchase and receive the products in one box, rather than two boxes. This is something related to marketing, though."
"Does not include security. A web application firewall would be a nice addition."
"There are some drawbacks, such as using EUG for specific configurations. It could be improved."
"Needs configuration processes like disabling LB VIPs, automatically disabling the IPs used."
"The solution could be more secure."
"Maybe creating policies with simple regular expressions."
"The interface needs to be improved because the competition is coming up with ones that are more eye-catching, straightforward, and sophisticated."
"We had some bugs in the previous firmware. These were not big issues, but more testing on the firmware would be key to happier customers."
"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."
"In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services."
"I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules."
"The product could be easier to use and implement."
"The product's performance should be better."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools."
"The tool's pricing could be improved."
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 41 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Citrix NetScaler writes "Optimizing application delivery and ensuring robust network performance with its excellent stability and comprehensive load-balancing capabilities". 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 F5 Advanced WAF, AWS WAF, Cloudflare Web Application Firewall, Azure Front Door 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.