We performed a comparison between Citrix SD-WAN and Steelhead based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two WAN Optimization solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is its reliability."
"The solution is brilliant, the way it calculates its paths and trails is great."
"The reliability of connectivity is most valuable."
"It allows us to use additional VPNs, offering more options compared to other VPN solutions."
"The zero-touch deployment is most valuable for us."
"They have a zero downtime failover mechanism, where, when there's a link failure or a link weakness, or bad link conditions, they provide the ability to fail back seamlessly."
"It allows you to combine two asymmetrical connections."
"The stability is the main feature of Citrix SD-WAN. You can also upgrade the data packages or have less transmission."
"Scalable data referencing is a great feature."
"TCP optimization... caches a particular TCP connection and the next time a user uses that connection he will reach the destination easily."
"Steelhead is stable, and it can even help you avoid service interruption in the event of a power outage. If your hardware fails, technical support will replace your device quickly."
"The compression of Riverbed is very powerful. It can also handle large quantities of traffic."
"The connectivity to speed is the valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Steelhead is its optimization capabilities."
"SteelHead works from the application. I use it to optimize traffic from Amazon. It is mainly used for customers who need to increase the traffic to 33K. For other users, it has been more of an operation."
"It is very easy to install the solution."
"Enhancements are needed to improve the stability."
"Even though the monitoring is pretty good, there is some room for improvement there."
"Overall, network security and next-generation firewall features are areas that they can improve on."
"The only improvement for Citrix SD-WAN would be to lower its cost."
"The price could be improved, it's an expensive solution."
"The initial setup could be a bit easier."
"There are a few things that can be improved, are domain-based routing and the slowness of virtual parts, and it may be due to the wrong configuration, which we have been unable to find out."
"The price is the only thing that could be improved. Citrix is not a cheap solution."
"One area for improvement is related to monitoring and visibility."
"They should include a network switch in a future release."
"If we load a primary firewall, the secondary firewall usually handles all the active connections, but in Riverbed, this isn't the case. We lose all the active connections at the moment of failure."
"The solution needs to have alert notifications."
"The application response time of the solution can be improved."
"The product should offer more integration capabilities."
"Application response time and network performance could be improved."
"I would like to see improvement in the solution’s configuration and protocol aspects. We have got some configurations that are not set. I would also like to simplify the call detection of some protocols."
Citrix SD-WAN is ranked 3rd in WAN Optimization with 21 reviews while Steelhead is ranked 4th in WAN Optimization with 22 reviews. Citrix SD-WAN is rated 8.2, while Steelhead is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Citrix SD-WAN writes " A scalable solution for MCN controller but lacks technical supports, upgrades". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Steelhead writes "Exceptionally stable and reliable but costly". Citrix SD-WAN is most compared with Cisco SD-WAN, Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform and Cato SASE Cloud Platform, whereas Steelhead is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform, WAAS, Noction IRP and Cisco SD-WAN. See our Citrix SD-WAN vs. Steelhead report.
See our list of best WAN Optimization vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all WAN Optimization 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.