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.
"The solution improves security performance."
"The web application firewall is one feature I found valuable in the solution."
"Global load balancing between data centers."
"Scalability is great. One of the best features of NetScaler is that it can scale out."
"Compared to other solutions, Citrix ADC is much more robust in terms of the native integration to cloud platforms. It is far more robust from an operational point of view as well."
"The solution was very easy to deploy."
"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."
"Provides resiliency for applications that reside on servers, as well as connectivity to remote applications."
"The DNS Load Balancer makes it so that I don't have to worry about site failures."
"Mitigates content security policy issues."
"One of the most valuable features I like is the ability to block specific cipher suites like RC4, and older protocols like SSL 3.0."
"When the templates are used, there is not much left to configure and they just work!"
"The feature I find most valuable is load balancing with different algorithms."
"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."
"There is a simplicity to the setup and configuration."
"We are looking for some in-depth monitoring and analytics and more information that Citrix Director doesn't provide. ControlUp has insights that not only give you an overview but also allow you to do some drill-down troubleshooting for what's going on in your environment. We are looking for some more analytical and monitoring data to be able to monitor the environment better, not only from an application standpoint but also from the standpoint of the infrastructure to everything it sits on. They can provide more data to the administrators about what's going on within the application. They can provide data not only on the application side but also about what the application sits on. They're making strides with Citrix Analytics in regards to that."
"Technical support could 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."
"ADC from Citrix has added functionalities from other products and the usability is very difficult for someone who is used to a simpler user interface, it's a little bit of a mess to use."
"The vendor provides frequent patches, however, the security of the website has room for improvement."
"Citrix NetScaler has been recently acquired by another company and the support has been negatively impacted, the solution is at its end of life. The support for the solution could improve. The sales team needs to be improved."
"There are certain features that are very useful and Citrix makes you pay a bit more for them."
"Maybe creating policies with simple regular expressions."
"There is room for improvement in the stability of the solution."
"Some documentation is out of date versus the new version, and things have been moved."
"The product could be improved by making the SSL Offloading easier."
"The only thing that I miss is that the TMG server was giving me live information about who is connected and what is the request about."
"Several elements of the GUI need work. For example, if you have many content switches, it’s difficult to find the ones you need. And where is the search feature?"
"When we go serverless, we may again have to revisit this because the configuration needs to be changed. With this change, we can run into a lot of other configurations that we haven't got into, which involve additional expenses. It would be challenging to convince management to buy at that price point. It would be a balancing act of justifying that expense and the value, that is, how it is going to save a bit of time and make our platform secure. It can have better configuration ability. A lot of iterations happen when we have multiple servers pointing to the same domain. If we do not orchestrate carefully, it gets into a loop, which takes away the precious time of the user who is trying to subscribe to a service. It takes a little longer time to realize services as well as web pages."
"It has all types of logs and they are very detailed, but it's a little bit hard to search for a single event."
"The cost of the GEO upgrade is not cost-prohibitive but it's something that would be a nice add-in, out of the box."
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while Kemp LoadMaster is ranked 6th 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.
