We performed a comparison between Citrix NetScaler and Kemp LoadMaster 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.
"For NetScaler, our major use cases are database load balancing, PowerVPN VPN access gateway, WAF (Web Application Firewall), and content switching."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN."
"The load balancing and VPN features are most valuable. AAA authentication is also valuable."
"It is the best product out there."
"Citrix NetScaler offers robust security features, including SmartAccess and customizable policies, making it a reliable choice for safeguarding user data."
"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."
"Scalability is great. One of the best features of NetScaler is that it can scale out."
"The program is easy to install and to set up."
"The solution is easy to configure when changing the load balancing method to Round Robin or least connection."
"With Kemp 360 Central, our customers get a nice overview of their Kemp products and an easy way to upgrade firmware on all devices from a single interface."
"From my personal experience, many firewalls provide Load Balancing functionalities, but Kemp Loadmaster has a lot of features and functionalities like what you can configure. So there are a lot of features but we use only five percent of it."
"I like the way this solution handles multiple SSLs in different domains while still load balancing."
"We needed a Microsoft Threat Management Gateway server replacement solution for a customer and were impressed with the simplified deployment of the Kemp LoadMasters."
"Edge Security Pack is valuable because of the way it separates between critical infrastructure and the public internet."
"We are most impressed with the ease of use and great support."
"The feature I find most valuable is load balancing with different algorithms."
"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."
"They can improve the scalability and the multi-tenancy feature. We recently tried to configure an authentication, and we ran into some issues while using the web-based GUI. It was very slow when you log in with your credentials in the web-based GUI. Each time we clicked on the menu, it tried to do the authentication. It works properly in the console."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated."
"Overall the price of Citrix ADC could be more competitive."
"Does not include security. A web application firewall would be a nice addition."
"Mastering it requires significant learning and training due to its complexity."
"I think the documentation should be improved."
"Quality assurance could improve by ironing out security vulnerabilities before releasing upgrades."
"I would like to see more automation and control of overactive and inactive resources. If I could schedule these around our updates then it would be all automated. I would like to set up an automated script to coincide with the scripts I use to update resources and servers."
"The product is really good as-is out of the box. If there is one thing I would change is to have the license file not be coupled with the MAC address of the device. This is actually not really useful in a virtual environment where if you have a single VM with KEMP LoadMaster and you have not set up static MAC Address, if you, for example, recreate the VM and just load the disk file on a new VM it will get new MAC address and the NLB will not work as it will not see a proper license."
"It would be nice if the historical metrics were easily exportable from the interface."
"Some of the support documentation seems to make assumptions that the person installing or configuring is experienced with the product or concepts."
"I think there should be more visual instructions on how to configure advanced features."
"They need to improve the UI environment. Currently, it's hard to navigate and use product."
"It lacks an officially supported, well-written SCOM Management Pack."
"If you want logging for SMTP traffic, you have to enable ESP, which requires you to define allowed IP addresses. That’s irritating, to say the least."
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 7th in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 48 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while Kemp LoadMaster is rated 9.4. 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 Kemp LoadMaster writes "Reliable, easy to set up, and can increase your security score". Citrix NetScaler is most compared with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM), Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas Kemp LoadMaster is most compared with HAProxy, NGINX Plus, Fortinet FortiADC, F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and A10 Networks Thunder ADC. See our Citrix NetScaler vs. Kemp LoadMaster 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.
