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.
"My clients use it for load balancing."
"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."
"Its customer support service is good."
"The best feature of Citrix is its track record of stability in its features."
"Content Redirection and SSO integration with Citrix XenApp/XenDesktop. The GUI was wonderful."
"This solution increases the backend network service performance, which is one of the things that we like the most."
"The solution was very easy to deploy."
"Most of the functions are user-friendly and great."
"We plan to create packages of services from which it will be possible to build comprehensive tailor-made solutions."
"Users can see a remarkable performance difference from a qualitative sense."
"It is a fast and available solution."
"There were a lot of good features. The most beneficial for maintaining server health included the algorithms for the virtual IP, which segment traffic between servers, authentication profiles, and many other things."
"The setup is pretty easy."
"The most valuable features are the WAF and the big IP."
"iRules are very valuable. In addition to that, the way profiles are depicted by the LTM is also very good."
"We always use technical support and the team helps us very well. They're able to effectively find and fix issues and they respond very quickly."
"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 can improve their support and send tickets directly to a Citrix ADC engineer in order to avoid having to escalate each support call."
"The customization has always been a key area where some improvements are required. In the beginning, everything was for customizing the outer shell of it. You had to use the command-based utility and you had to do a lot of manual work. They have improved it a little bit and now there are some GUI-based functionalities that can be used. However, more can be done that doesn't require a lot of intervention. Right now there are some features, there are some customizations that can be done, but it's still very tedious, very cumbersome, a lot of work. So that could be simplified."
"Technical support sometimes takes a little longer because of the multilevel ticket priority."
"The main areas for improvement would be around documentation and support. If a feature can be used in two or three ways, show that feature being used in all of those ways. Documentation seems to only cover the primary use case and leaves you to either run through trial and error or consult the user community. In terms of support, I have never actually had them solve any of my issues. I have always solved them myself and then provided the resolution to support."
"Citrix ADC is a complex product, and it takes time to understand these things. But the documentation is poor, and the deployment is difficult. Integration could also be better because what I find is that you cannot easily integrate the panel in the second sector. What I have found is that in the last index, there is a limitation when getting validated. Technical support could also be better."
"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."
"Some of our customers have questioned the security of this solution lately, wondering whether it is safe or not, so enhancements in this respect would be good."
"It is a hardware load balancer, and its installation procedure is more complex than a software load balancer. There are pros and cons of using hardware load balancing. You have to have specific hardware deployed in your data center to activate this load balancer. They never came up with any software-based load balancing solution. It is all hardware-based."
"I think the logging could be improved."
"Security enhancement should be more user friendly."
"Currently, the product offers everything we need. I can't recall any features that may be lacking."
"An area for improvement in F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is that it's a high-priced product."
"The license terms for "non-commercial" will be a challenge for us."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
"The product is expensive."
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 117 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 "Reduces maintenance downtime and has a strong user community". 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, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and HAProxy. 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.