We performed a comparison between A10 Networks Lightning ADC, Citrix NetScaler, and Loadbalancer.org based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Citrix, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)."What I like about Lightning ADC, is that instead of having a big appliance sitting in front of the Kubernetes cluster, Lightning can pretty much go inside of Kubernetes."
"Our clients appreciate that this is a security enabled solution."
"It allows you to secure the application while balancing the connections for many other customers, reducing CPU usage and server load."
"The solution is easy to work with and manage."
"The load balancing and VPN features are most valuable. AAA authentication is also valuable."
"Helped us a lot with load balancing."
"For desktop application management, I recommend the NetScaler edition. This product is like a Swiss army knife. Citrix NetScaler ADC supports the education front-end."
"The most valuable feature of Citrix NetScaler was the seamless integration. Additionally, the UI is good."
"It is a very stable solution."
"Enables a Web service that offers persistent client-server connections, IP restriction, URL rewrite (such as remove "/assets/" path from client-side URL path), and cache for CSS or JS files... You can easily use the GUI to set up all these requirements on the same network device within 20-30 minutes. (If you do the same steps on CLI, it might take less time.)"
"The web application firewalling component is a powerful feature."
"The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
"Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix."
"Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed."
"For now, it's stable."
"I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable."
"It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques."
"We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members."
"The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good."
"We would like to see some improvement in the rapidity with which we can customize security facts within the solution."
"The support from A10 should be improved."
"A10 documentation is not as open and accessible as AWS and Azure documentation is."
"Should offer more flexible cost-effective licensing for small to medium sized organizations."
"Quality assurance could improve by ironing out security vulnerabilities before releasing upgrades."
"The technical support could be improved. They do not respond or assist customers in a timely manner."
"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."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Citrix should offer a demo or free-trial version of NetScaler. Several other vendors do, but Citrix does not. Pricing should also be more readily available."
"Citrix ADC can improve if it provides a more user-friendly interface and clear working protocols. Citrix is not working with classic RFC, it is working with Citrix RFC, which is not common in the world. If engineers of Citrix can provide us with more information on working with the classic IP networks it would be a benefit."
"Its GUI should be improved. Its CLI is powerful, but GUI needs more features."
"They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."
"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 interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved."
"There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."
"I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly."
"Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."
"It doesn't have the bonding capability feature."
"If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."
