Citrix NetScaler Reviews

• Easy to configure the settings
• Easy to operate
• A lot of useful network and other great settings
• A lot of official and unofficial documentations are available on the internet

It is used specially to provide Citrix Access Gateway to customers and their employees.

I cannot think of any features that should be added because the product has a lot of useful features already.

Over a year with two customers.

No, easy to deploy.

No, very stable.

No, because it can be merged into a cluster.

Yes, we also use F5 Big-IP LTM and in the past we used Cisco ACE. We didn’t switch specifically to use NetScaler, as we use the most appropriate solution depending on the customers needs.

It depends on the customers needs. If they need high availability, if they need Clustering, the number of virtual servers needed and so on.

We used both of them, but when we used the vendor team, their skills were bad and rework from our in-house was needed.

Yes, we use F5 Big-IP LTM and in the past we used Cisco ACE.

Yes, two pieces of advice

1. Do the official training; and 
2. Use the Citrix documentation

We are only using it for load balancing and application firewalls.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its load balancing.

Citrix ADC is actually not the most preferable product from our perspective but for the virtual desktop use it is very efficient. It's very integrated with the virtual desktop. It has a seamless integration and that is the most valuable part.

Since it has a significant integration with its virtualization, that has improved the usability access of the virtual desktops.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated.

In the next release, I would like to see advanced language support for managing the traffic, rather than only the RegEx. That would be helpful.

I have been using Citrix ADC for about five years.

In terms of stability, it is not as good as F5. 

It is not as scalable as F5.

There are three people using it, and they're all engineers.

It takes one staff member for the deployment and maintenance - also an engineer.

We have a static user base in our organization, but for our customer base its use is going to be expanded.

The technical support is not bad.

We are using most of the solutions together, so there is no switching between the products. We are currently using F5, too, and we always prefer that first. But it depends on the deployment and it depends on the needs. For deployments we choose Citrix.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took two hours.

Our strategy is just deploy and use it. It's a simple process for us.

We are the integrators.

If they are going to use it with the VDI, it is a very good product, but it has weaknesses in application firewall development. So if they are going to only do load balancing in an SMB solution, it is a good product. But if they're consulting as an enterprise product and in a very large scale deployment enterprise, Citrix is not a complete solution. But for an SMB product and a basic cloud balance, it is a good product.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Citrix ADC a seven. It does what it does. It is a product for some simple tasks, but just not suitable for the complex tasks.

We are using NetScaler VPX as a gateway for our virtual applications and desktops.

The most valuable feature is the securing of virtual apps and desktops.

This solution increases the backend network service performance, which is one of the things that we like the most.

Bugs in the software have had an impact on us. Better quality control or quality assurance would be an improvement.

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.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler VPX for seven or eight years.

Citrix NetScaler VPX is a very stable solution and it is used on a daily basis. Its use is quite crucial.

This is a scalable solution and it is easy to expand.

We have a variety of clients that range in size from small businesses to enterprise-level customers. Most of our clients are of medium size.

The technical support for this solution is pretty good.

Prior to this solution, we used F5 BIG-IP and the Azure Load Balancer.

The initial setup is simple. It takes 30 or 40 minutes to deploy.

I am a consultant and the person responsible for deploying this solution. Usually, one or two engineers are used during deployment.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the scope of the project. I would say that two to three people are the average.

The licensing costs for this solution vary depending on which model is being used. It comes in many different sizes and models. I think that the cost of support, or maintenance, might be in addition to the standard feeds.

Our clients do evaluate other options and vendors such as F5, Cisco, Palo Alto, and Microsoft Azure before deciding on which solution to implement. People generally choose Citrix NetScaler because of the performance that it offers. Also, if they have other products by Citrix then it is generally a good idea to stay with the same vendor because of compatibility.

This is definitely a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for network load balancing on the edge of the network. 

The solution's most valuable feature is the content.

The solution is a bit more expensive than some of the available solutions in this region. One solution in particular that I noticed was cheaper was Kemp. 

The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature.

The solution is pretty scalable. Right now, we are only using about 40-50% of the solution's capacity. We have about 4,000 users connecting through the system. Currently, we don't plan to increase usage.

Support has been okay so far. We only ever call about two times a year, but each time we get the right help. Once we called about custom features and they supported us quite well.

We previously used Kemp Load Balancer. We still have it as part of our infrastructure. The main difference between the two is the Citrix solution is part of a physical appliance, whereas the Kemp solution is a virtual appliance.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had a very good engineer that handled the implementation.

There are costs in addition to the licensing fees, so the overall price can begin to add up.

I would recommend the solution to people who need the services and features provided by Citrix. It's a wonderful product. We've never had any downtime on our NetScaler solution. I'm pretty happy with it.

I'd rate it nine out of ten.

• Web Application Firewall
• Content Switching Applications
• SSL Handling

Deployment of NetScalers on our DMZ enables our organization to implement a secured gateway for our Web Portal, Inbound/Outbound application web service calls across our partners/clients, security, and Traffic Management.

The web management console uses a Java plugin. Some improvements are needed on the web management console.

6 years.

We only encountered hardware issues in which were addressed with a firmware upgrade.

None.

Good. Citrix has been very supportive.

Good.

None were previously used.

The appliance's initial setup was very easy and seamless.

We have our own competency pool for this appliance. Though we have direct support services from Citrix.

Consider the sizing first before purchasing the appliance.

Yes, BigF5.

Our company is based in Ecuador. I'm a key account manager and a business consultant. 

With Citrix ADC, our clients can improve their security, performance, and they can escalate when they need it. It's a complete solution for application delivery and security.

When it comes to all Citrix products, price is an issue, because all their products are complete solutions. They have all the characteristics that our clients require, but it almost falls down when we are competing with less expensive solutions.

In Ecuador, people don't just rely on the functionalities of a solution, the price point is very important, even though they know that Citrix is a better product. I'd like to see a different licensing model that would take all that into account. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable and flexible. 

Most of our clients don't require support for the product. We manage the solution and organize periodical maintenance. If there are any firmware updates or a patch that Citrix has released, we install them. 

The implementation is quite difficult. We have one person who is certified in the solution and has a lot of experience with the products. Our other technicians don't have as much experience and implementation of ADC is complex for them. 

Citrix ADC is one of the main elements of the SEA approach that Garner has released. Users can manage their applications, as well as monitor and improve all the security that they need.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

Our primary use case for the product is server load balancing, specifically the application level.

We are able to offer more support to our customers.

The most valuable feature is the capability of performing load balancing in a virtual environment.

They need to implement and integrate security solutions. Specifically, a web application firewall.

I would give this solution nine out of ten for stability. It is not perfect because at times I was faced with an issue where the application was getting a lot more traffic than is desirable, and I can see Citrix having issues with this.

We have close to fourteen hundred clients using this solution. We expect this to increase, but it is dependent on clients' needs in terms of load balancing.

Some of our clients use the F5 load balancing solution, but that is only ten to fifteen of approximately fourteen hundred clients.

It is a pretty easy setup. You don't need to change anything related to your IT configuration, MAC addresses, or switching tables.

We implement this solution for our clients. We use a template based approach, so normally it can be deployed in a fraction of minutes. One person is sufficient for the deployment and maintenance of this product.

I recommend this product to customers because they have a ninety day free-trial period. This is a good solution for people who also have a budget constraint.

We have a five year platinum licensing agreement, which does not incur additional costs of any kind.

I would rate this product eight out of ten.

This product helps with load balancing. As an engineer, I help implement this for our company.

It helps with load balancing. 

The product is stable. 

It can be a complex setup in some cases. 

I do not have any experience with the pricing of the product. 

In comparison to F5 BIG-IP, this is the best solution. It is the best product out there.