Anonymous UserSenior Server Administrator at a financial services firm
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Being a public entity and having a public website which is highly visible with a lot of traffic, we are a target for DDoS. Within the last year, we have had a couple of DDoS attacks which could have affected our web traffic and taken down certain parts of our website. This did not happen because the A10 was able to mitigate the attacks using rate limiting that can be configured for DDoS mitigation on the box."
"It is very useful to have a simple dashboard where you can login and look into what your traffic patterns are, then look and see what times of day you're experiencing the heaviest traffic. You can quickly identify if you are possibly having a security issue or security breach. It makes it very easy to use the box."
"The Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) is simple to use."
"We have two appliances and I'm able to move my application from one appliance to another. I don't have to move my whole A10 to be active on the other side or to be passive on the other side. If an application is having a problem, I can just move it using a command."
"We do have the option of creating virtual chassis, so that gives it a bit more security. If we find an application which is not going to play well in the main pool, we can easily create a virtual chassis and have that application in that virtual chassis. With the virtual chassis we can also create system partitions and have a test system for test applications, and have the others elsewhere."
"A10 explained why the latency dropped significantly on a site that we have."
"The ease of use is very good. It's very robust. It just sits and works."
"Compared to F5, which I used about six years ago, the A10 is much easier when routing. You don't have to use the wildcard bits to route it between the different segments. It's much less troublesome to configure."
"My customers have told me that the performance of this solution is good."
"The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature."
"The solution was very easy to deploy."
"The program is easy to install and to set up."
"This solution increases the backend network service performance, which is one of the things that we like the most."
"The load balancing is one of the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is load balancing."
"It is a complete solution for those looking for an all-in-one."
"When it comes to support, there is always room for improvement. First call resolution is not always there for urgent issues. The first call resolution is something that could be improved upon."
"They need to make the user interface (GUI) a bit more usable and intuitive. Some features can be a little difficult to find at times. Sometimes, the workflow in the GUI doesn't match the workflow of an actual workflow. E.g., if I want to create a load balancer application, sometimes you've got to do things a bit out of order in the GUI in order to make it work right."
"Traffic flow issues are very difficult, as there's no means for us to analyze the traffic coming in or out of the appliance without technical support."
"The solution does logging, but the logging capacity is really small. Because we have a bunch of traffic here, we usually get a logging-side warning that "This many logs were lost because of the heavy traffic." If the logging was better, that would be very good."
"I would like them to provide learning tips and a community forum where users can share ideas. They need more detailed support articles on the A10 website."
"The user interface is what people complain about most of the time, particularly if they don't use it very often. Then they complain that it's a bit clunky."
"There is room for improvement in the GUI. I just migrated from the 2.7 software train to the 4.1, and there are still people on 2.7. The latter is a very old GUI if you compare it to F5. It's not as easy to use and a lot of things are missing. They've made a lot of improvements in the 4.1 step, but compared to the ease of use of F5, it's still quite difficult. For people who haven't got a lot of experience, the GUI can be quite challenging."
"In my opinion, they need to improve their cloud support. There is support for cloud, but not all functions are there, such as high-availability."
"I would like to see multifactor authentication added to this solution to improve the security."
"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."
"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."
"I think the documentation should be improved."
"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 will try to migrate all the tools to the cloud because there is more lab and more VPN scalability available in the cloud. It is not available on-premises."
"The WAF component needs to be simplified so that it is easier to use."
"Too many bugs in the software and it's always difficult when you need to update."
"One of the main reasons for switching away from Cisco was the licensing model. A10 gives you global server load balancing for free, while Cisco charged a significant licensing fee for that."
"For the hardware and license, we paid $35,000 per box, which was a one-time cost. Then, for the Gold Support on the two boxes, we pay $9400 annually."
"It is $7000 per unit for the support annually."
"We previously had F5 and switched because of costs."
"There were budgetary constraints that keep us from investing in the single pane of glass traffic management feature. We saw a demo of this feature about a year to a year and a half ago."
"As for the initial investment in the hardware, F5 and A10 are quite similar now. For the current A10 solution, the initial cost was about $36,000. As for annual support, the F5 solution would be between $10,000 and $12,000, while the A10 is $2,200 a year for support."
"You get a lot more for your dollar with A10."
"We did try out the solution’s Harmony analytics and visibility controller for its one-year trial. Due to the cost, we chose not to keep it onsite."
"Citrix NetScaler VPX is not the cheapest solution out there, but you get what you pay for."
"The licensing costs for this solution vary depending on which model is being used."
"Our licensing fees including technical support are approximately $3,500 USD."
"It's an expensive product but it works well."
"We get value for money. Its price is fair. I don't think it is overpriced."
"This product is more expensive than some of the competitors."
"It is very pricey, but we get it. If you need the best, money shouldn't be a problem."
"When compared to other solutions, the cost is high."
A10 Networks' application networking, load balancing and DDoS protection solutions accelerate and secure data center applications and networks of thousands of the world's largest enterprises, service providers, and hyper scale web providers.
Citrix ADC is an application delivery controller (ADC) that accelerates application performance, enhances application availability with advanced L4-7 load balancing, secures mission-critical apps from attacks and lowers server expenses by offloading computationally intensive tasks.
A10 Networks Thunder ADC is ranked 3rd in Application Delivery Controllers with 11 reviews while Citrix ADC is ranked 4th in Application Delivery Controllers with 16 reviews. A10 Networks Thunder ADC is rated 8.8, while Citrix ADC is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of A10 Networks Thunder ADC writes "A reliable product that is very easy to configure and administrate while being cost-effective". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Citrix ADC writes "A scalable and versatile solution that allows us to easily monitor and manage applications and publish to many devices". A10 Networks Thunder ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, Kemp LoadMaster, Radware Alteon, NGINX Plus and Barracuda Web Application Firewall, whereas Citrix ADC is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, HAProxy, Fortinet FortiADC and Avi Networks Software Load Balancer. See our A10 Networks Thunder ADC vs. Citrix ADC report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers 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.