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.
"It is a complete solution for those looking for an all-in-one."
"The flexibility in configuration options is impressive."
"It is the best product out there."
"Helped us a lot with load balancing."
"Content Switching provides flexibility for routing traffic as desired to designated real servers. It also provides good geo capabilities through its GSLB feature."
"It has helped us to increase the resiliency of the application and the performance."
"Load balancing, cache redirection, content switching, all connected with traffic management."
"SSL Offload"
"Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it."
"I like the tool's stability and performance."
"The solution's integration is very good."
"The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads."
"I find Application Gateway’s WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks."
"Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable."
"Improvements are needed to address the issue of machines becoming unregistered, ensuring stability for end users. Troubleshooting with Citrix support can be challenging, so clearer diagnostics would be beneficial. As for global server load balancing, it works well on-premises, depending on user volume and service stability. Overall, it's satisfactory for us."
"It can be difficult to setup."
"There are certain features that are very useful and Citrix makes you pay a bit more for them."
"We have issues with the certificates. All authorization processes need certificates, however, every three months we needed to change certificates. This process iss complicated for us because Citrix does not have a not user-friendly interface and does not off user-friendly services. This needs a lot of improvement."
"Development team's response time could be better."
"Finding relevant documentation for learning NetScaler can be challenging, especially for beginners who prefer a web interface over command-line interfaces."
"The tool needs to add a feature where we can access the network policy access manager."
"Currently, the support team's responsiveness is lacking, and the technical personnel on calls often seem unfamiliar with the issues or inadequately trained."
"I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive."
"Microsoft needs to work on their documentation."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to 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."
"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."
"Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful."
"The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway."
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.