We performed a comparison between Citrix NetScaler and Loadbalancer.org based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Unified Gateway allows me to provide secure external access to applications for suppliers and customers while requiring Multi-Factor Authentication."
"This solution allows the user to easily scale out application delivery, and provides secure remote access."
"The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature."
"For NetScaler, our major use cases are database load balancing, PowerVPN VPN access gateway, WAF (Web Application Firewall), and content switching."
"SSL Offload"
"The maintenance of the solution is not complex."
"Citrix Netscaler makes it easy to provide services to end users, offering better visibility into user sessions compared to VMware. However, instability in network or machine can cause headaches as it's hard to pinpoint issues. SSL offload feature enhances security posture by providing secure connectivity between end users and backend systems. We use additional Azure remote security solutions for comprehensive protection."
"The load balancing feature and the fact that you can do context switching in the WAF are the most valuable. We majorly use it for load balancing, but we also use it for context switching in the WAF. It is also robust and very easy to work with and manage."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server."
"The features I find valuable in this solution are the ease of managing the logs on the WAFs, the ease to identify break-in attempts into the network, the front-end firewall, and a more specific firewall."
"It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
"Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."
"It does not have a sandbox cloud service and antivirus. It should have on-prem or cloud sandboxing and antivirus."
"The solution can improve their support and send tickets directly to a Citrix ADC engineer in order to avoid having to escalate each support call."
"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."
"Maybe creating policies with simple regular expressions."
"I feel that Citrix NetScaler's customer support needs to improve."
"Needs configuration processes like disabling LB VIPs, automatically disabling the IPs used."
"The setup for Citrix NetScaler has room for improvement. It could be easier."
"The WAF component needs to be simplified so that it is easier to use."
"It would be great if there was a way to gain access to the graphing data, to create custom reports. If we had a way to use the graphing data, we could use it to present certain information to our client, such as the uptime status for their service."
"The solution can be a bit pricey."
"The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less."
"We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
"The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging."
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while Loadbalancer.org is ranked 10th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 22 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while Loadbalancer.org is rated 8.8. 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 Loadbalancer.org writes "Great WAF - low-maintenance solution that performs as advertised ". Citrix NetScaler is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas Loadbalancer.org is most compared with HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Kemp LoadMaster and NGINX Plus. See our Citrix NetScaler vs. Loadbalancer.org 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.