We compared F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Citrix NetScaler based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
The F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is praised for its efficient traffic distribution and excellent customer service, with users highlighting the product's positive return on investment. In contrast, Citrix NetScaler stands out for its robust load balancing capabilities, security features, and scalability. Users also appreciate the competitive pricing and responsiveness of the support team. Enhancements desired for F5 BIG-IP LTM include improved documentation and user interfaces, while Citrix NetScaler users seek improved scalability and compatibility with applications.
Features: F5 BIG-IP LTM excels in efficiently distributing traffic, managing load, enhancing application performance, and ensuring high availability. Citrix NetScaler stands out with robust load balancing, security features against DDoS attacks, secure remote access, and seamless scalability.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is described as easy and straightforward, without any complications. It offers flexible and customizable licensing options. Citrix NetScaler also has a straightforward and easy setup cost, with users mentioning its cost-effectiveness. It offers competitive and reasonable pricing and flexible licensing options., F5 BIG-IP LTM and Citrix NetScaler both offer favorable ROI according to user feedback. F5 LTM is valued for its contribution to business success, while Citrix NetScaler delivers positive outcomes and benefits for users.
Room for Improvement: The F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could benefit from better documentation, more intuitive user interfaces, streamlined workflows, improved ease of use, more responsive customer support, and timely updates. In comparison, users of Citrix NetScaler desire improved scalability, more intuitive interfaces, enhanced documentation and support, and resolution of compatibility issues with certain applications.
Deployment and customer support: The user feedback for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) indicates varying durations for establishing a new tech solution, with some users mentioning three months for deployment and an additional week for setup, while others mention a week for both. Citrix NetScaler users mention different timeframes for deployment and setup, emphasizing that both should be considered or that they may refer to the same period., The customer service for F5 BIG-IP LTM is highly commendable, with knowledgeable and responsive representatives. Users appreciate the prompt resolution of issues and professional support. Citrix NetScaler also provides satisfactory customer service with a helpful and responsive support team, offering effective solutions.
The summary above is based on 60 interviews we conducted recently with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Citrix NetScaler users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Scalability is great. One of the best features of NetScaler is that it can scale out."
"I like app flows and custom flows. They integrate with multiple flows."
"Very stable."
"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."
"HTTP analysis and action. We have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions. Some of these custom apps are external and, via the content switching, we can use one IP and leverage various back-end web app servers."
"Its flexibility, agility, and robustness are the most valuable. Its management and implementation are also quite easy."
"The program is easy to install and to set up."
"The most valuable feature for us is the application firewalling in Citrix NetScaler, ensuring only valid traffic enters our environment."
"The support from F5 BIG-IP LTM is good."
"It also has an AVR feature: application, visibility, and recording. It's good for customers looking for what is actually happening in their network and where the latency is."
"Where we are finding the AWS version helpful is when we are trying to scale up new environments. AWS Marketplace helps here a lot."
"The solution's stability is pretty good."
"It supports APIs and virtual additions for cloud and VMware."
"You can create multiple virtual servers on F5 BIG-IP technology, and within multiple virtual servers you can have multiple nodes, where a node equals two application servers."
"Currently, it's distributing the load perfectly, as per my understanding of our requirements."
"Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
"Scripting and writing expressions need to be improved by putting logic behind the rules and improve policies involving some of the scripting part, which is a tedious task to do."
"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."
"It was challenging explaining to customers that it's no longer NetScaler but ADC, and now it's not just ADC but also the rebranding from NetScaler."
"Its GUI should be improved. Its CLI is powerful, but GUI needs more features."
"The technical support could be better. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed. And most of the time, I finished fixing the problem by looking on the internet or by finding documents about the problem on Google."
"An area for improvement would be the difficulty in finding information about standard licensing costs over the internet. They should provide some reference prices on the net to be quickly referred to."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated."
"Technical support could be improved."
"BIG-IP LTM's sandboxing integration could be improved."
"Logging is a bit of a problem. Logging and monitoring are only in plain text. You have to search and you have to know what you are searching for to find anything. So of course, monitoring and getting alerts for abnormal situations is hard. There are no tools for monitoring and alerts"
"The solution could improve the documentation."
"It reaches a point where scaling is no longer possible."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"The auto logout feature after three minutes is terrible. I wish they would make that longer, since it is not a feature that we can change."
"There is a challenge in Pakistan. This is when there is a hardware failure. Sometimes, it takes more time to get a replacement because it is sent out from the U.S. or some other regional outpost. Thus, it takes two to three days to receive a replacement."
"Performance: Using the product, applications are jittery."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. 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 F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". Citrix NetScaler is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy, Loadbalancer.org and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, HAProxy and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Citrix NetScaler vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) 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.