Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) Reviews

We are a system integrator for Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops and we also make use of it in our own company. Our primary use case is ensuring that all our applications (e.g. Chrome) can be accessed in a secure manner by employees. As opposed to a VPN, it's much more secure.

The other main reason why we use this solution is because it enables us to centralize our systems, making it easier for the IT team to manage everything.

The biggest benefit of using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is that all of the company's applications and data are situated on one centralized server, removing the need to install applications on the users' physical desktops or laptops. Whenever we want to access anything, Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops provides a seamless experience that lets us connect to our apps and files from anywhere. It's much like having a virtual office.

This arrangement also improves IT security because it ensures that no potentially-unsafe data will be downloaded on the end-points.

Instead of pointing to any single feature, I would say the most valuable aspect of Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is the overall product itself. Virtualized apps and desktops, in theory and in practice, are very helpful to users.

Our experience of Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is good, but the environment can become complex and difficult to manage at times.

The price is also too high, in my opinion, and could be reduced.

I have been using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for seven years.

It is stable.

It's a scalable solution. In our company we have about 20 users but some of our customers have between 250-1,000 users.

We have occasionally escalated issues to Citrix's technical support. I would rate their support services a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We have tried other solutions in the past, but in the end we found Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops the best fit for our use cases.

The setup is a complex process as there is a lot of competency required. This isn't just to do with Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops itself; it also depends on how complicated the existing infrastructure is. 

Depending on the number of users and the specific requirements, the deployment can take from three days to three weeks. When we deploy the solution for customers, we have to take a number of factors into account, such as the user count, which applications they will be using, whether they will be using desktops or laptops, and other things such as how much data will be sent back and forth.

Then we need to size up the infrastructure (CPU, RAM, storage, etc.) to make sure that there are sufficient resources, and if not, then we will deploy the necessary extra hardware. After that, the next step is to use a virtualization platform such as VMware, Hyper-V, or Nutanix, and then we download and install the Citrix environment. Finally, within the Citrix solution, we configure the applications to be used by end-points.

I would rate the setup process a five out of ten.

We did our own deployment in-house with the help of one or two staff members.

Ongoing maintenance and support is generally required since there are multiple users, many of which are using Microsoft Windows, and we tend to encounter maintenance issues about once a month. However, most of the problems we see are related more to the Windows environment rather than being the fault of Citrix itself.

There is definitely ROI in the long term because you are getting increased security and productivity (i.e. you can access anything in your company from anywhere) with reduced operational costs.

We're paying for a standard license and, in my view, the price is too high. I would be satisfied with it if it were reduced by about 20-30%. Right now, I would rate the pricing a five out of ten.

My advice to others is to make sure that your physical environment has sufficient computing resources, otherwise the performance won't be as good as it could be and your users won't be happy with it. Besides ensuring stable infrastructure, you should implement the solution with people who have the required experience needed to manage it.

I would rate Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops an eight out of ten.

We use Citrix Workspace to login into our system.

We have several users and there are standards in the installation process because of the security. They have found that various systems with standard installations, restricting users to go ahead and install on their own.

Everything is managed through the infrastructure. ServiceNow is used for the CCM.

Everything is automated machine creations and installations. They take care of the machines with regular updates on weekends.

Everything is automated here, and there is no manual intervention for setting up any system if a new user is hired.

The feature that I like is that it is fast. For example, if I am new to the company, setting up systems can take up a lot of time, but, having standard automation in place allows this user to have the same set of software installed on his or her machine.

The only area that takes some time is that it requires us to get the approval. Once the approval is given, the system with everything is installed as a prerequisite.

Because it's a prerequisite, it's a standard installation in all the systems, there are no discrepancies because everything is standard, it's automated. If I am using a particular version, it will be the same version in my colleague's system.

It's very easy.

Performance is an area that can be improved. The meetings that use Skype in Workspace will lag when they run long or we screen share. At times, it is slow when there are multiple users on the server.

When it lags, we restart it to get it resolved. If multiple users are using a single server it will lag. 

The lag when using Skype or Screen Sharing with multiple users needs to improve, as it makes it difficult for us to continue when we have to restart the system. 

I have been using Citrix Workspace for almost one year.

The solution is stable, however, there are version discrepancies. For example, a new version of Citrix has become available and I am using the old version of Citrix the new version is not compatible with the Media version, which creates problems when using Skype or any video meeting.

Lag is something that we observe frequently, but it can be resolved because we have a guideline page that shows us the versions that should be compatible with our systems or Windows Operating System, and the Media Version, which is the Citrix HDX Realtime Media Version, should also be compatible with the Citrix Workstation that we are using. If both are good your system will work well.

It's a scalable solution and everyone in the organization uses it. We have more than 15,000 users.

We plan to continue to use Citrix Workspace.

I do not have experience with technical support. I have a PoC team that deals with them. They are quick to resolve issues.

We just need to create a ticket and ask for support.

Ther support is good and they are quick to respond and resolve issues.

Previously, we used A3 Machine, which was replaced by Citrix Workspace.

It is easy to install. There is a link provided on our homepage for login.

We just need to install it and restart the system.

It is very fast. It took half an hour or so.

Azure Desktop has been released and we will be using this along with Citrix Workspace. When we want to use something, we need to first have Citrix Workspace.

I have Citrix Workspace and on top of that, I can use Microsoft Azure Desktop, which may allow me to program in that machine. Citrix Workspace is the base and it works fine with most of our products.

Definitely, I would recommend Citrix Workspace to others who are interested in using it. It's very handy, portable, fast, and easy to install. Also, it is the standard amongst all users.

I would encourage everybody to use Citrix Workspace.

We are quite satisfied. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I mainly use it for VPN connections to resources like my physical laptop, which is currently in the office, while I'm working remotely. We use it for all the virtual machines.

The goal is to simply give users the possibility to securely connect to their laptops or virtual machines, in some cases.

It's not a cloud solution. We use Virtual Apps and Desktops with Windows 10 in the same way as servers with, for example, Linux systems. There is no dedicated infrastructure.

I'm not a Citrix administrator, I'm just a regular user.

From my perspective, when the COVID pandemic occurred, and the whole company had to work remotely, the users who used this solution had a better feeling that the remote system is stable and reliable, in comparison with a regular VPN connection with a VPN client. The difference with Citrix is that only the things you move on your screen, like the mouse and keyboard keys, are transmitted. In a normal VPN connection, the whole connection to the network resources in the company are transmitted and this costs bandwidth. The Citrix solution is much more convenient for the user.

The most valuable feature is the gateway to a remote connection, to a physical or a virtual PC. Compared to a normal VPN client and connection, the connection via Citrix is more stable and does not consume as much network bandwidth.

I have been using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for about two years, but I am familiar with previous versions like XenServer and XenDesktop. So my overall experience with Citrix goes back about six years.

It is a stable solution. But if we don't have a stable network in the user environment, it is very sensitive to things like that. The user experience when using the solution’s technology remotely depends on network stability. When the network is stable the experience is positive, but when there is some fluctuation of the network speed, Citrix can freeze the screen or mouse at that moment, and this is not good for users.

One of the advantages of Citrix is its automatic reconnection. If a connection is broken for a second or two, Citrix tries to reconnect. And if the loss of connection is less than, say, 15 seconds, the user will have the same moment on his screen as before the connection was lost.

As I review the possibilities of adding a second site or more users, or advantages like multi-screen, I believe this is a scalable solution.

I am familiar with Check Point's VPN and VMware Horizon. These are comparable technologies to Citrix.

At various times I have used the VPN client from Check Point. This solution is a very stable and secure solution.

Citrix is oriented toward web application access with access to VDIs or regular, physical PCs. 

And VMware Horizon is a solution oriented strictly to give access to give to virtual desktops. Citrix is a set of technologies which can be used to access physical and virtual machines, while Horizon is mostly for virtual machines and Check Point is mostly for accessing physical applications and to secure the traffic.

Each vendor, in upcoming versions, adds this or that possibility, so that the products will be similar in terms of their roadmaps.

It's easy. We have a very clear idea of the setup. But from a financial point of view, it's not so easy to deploy it quickly.

This was a kind of PoC, to see what Citirx looks like. After financial considerations and discussions, we decided to stay at this stage for the next year or more.

In terms of our initial setup, from the beginning of COVID pandemic, starting in March of this year, about 50 users have started working with the Citrix connection to their laptops and VDIs, while about 100 users have worked with regular VPN. The Citrix users mainly work with detailed applications which need long connection times. They are IT employees, like me, and a couple of people like the CEO and others from management.

There are two or three technicians who administer it.

Based not only on the cost of Citrix, but additional costs like firewalls, IPS, and other solutions, the total cost of switching users from using normal laptops with VPNs to connection via Citrix were so huge that the CEO of our company decided to postpone the deployment process.

Because we are at the beginning and have started from scratch we are, on the one hand, in a very convenient situation. But on the other hand, we must spend a certain amount of money for infrastructure on things like routers, connections, etc.

Building a real farm of VDIs could improve the work for users, but this is a strategic decision for our company. We are reviewing technologies like VMware Horizon and others. In each case, the cost is high and in the current pandemic/financial situation, our company has decided to postpone plans to move until next year or later.

I would like them to make the licensing easier to understand. Licensing is quite complicated for apps or processors or servers. When you try to adopt a solution, licensing is per bundle. But for a regular user, from a business point of view, there is no strict license: For example, access to VDI will cost X, and that is all. Instead, in each case, there is a license for access costs, while per-server the cost is that, and to another type of server it costs that. No vendor will tell you, "This is the cost per user." In each case, the answer is, "It depends."

My advice would be to be patient. Each solution has its pros and cons.

We use the following in protecting our environment: Citrix Gateway combined with users from Active Directory and RSA tokens, as well as Remote PC Access.

I am able to use the solution from my private laptop, my company laptop, and I don't see any difference. I imagine the behavior should nearly be the same across other devices.

I need it to be able to access internal resources and work from a secure environment, wherever I am based. Frankly, security is my only concern.

I use the on-premises desktop virtualization and Remote PC Access. 

I am using it for personal use.

The only reason why I use it is I may need to access my files from anywhere that I am and where I cannot install a VPN to my place or anything else. I have managed to secure it enough to know that my files will always be accessible no matter where I am. I wouldn't use it otherwise.

I perform security tests with external providers.

The only thing that is really important for me is being able to connect from wherever I am. It is important for me because sometimes I am in places where there are not enough safe conditions to be able to work safely, in terms of security and confidentiality of my data. Being able to access internal resources from a secure platform allows me to work without fearing that my data has been stolen.

The NetScaler Gateway is very customizable. However, it is also a mess in a sense that you can't find what you want or where it's supposed to be. You are supposed to navigate dozens of manuals to find the right one. It is not well-organized. Then, it becomes messy when we talk about configuration.

Six years now.

I would rate the user experience when using the solution’s technology remotely as an eight out of 10, because it is normally quick and stable enough. The way it works, it may not be perfect, which is why I don't think it gets a nine out of 10, but it is stable enough to allow me to work. That is what counts in the end.

Since I use one machine, I don't need to worry about scalability, high availability, etc. I just have it up when I need it.

When I needed support for a couple of things, three people intervened. Each time, three people gave me a different answer. In the end, they did not manage to give the right answer. At a certain point, they stopped replying. That is no more than a one out of 10. If I could give a zero, I would give a zero.

Negative

I am using both Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops and VMware Horizon, so I am not really switching to Citrix. 

I prefer Citrix because it is faster and the interface is cleaner. The text is crispier. It looks like a pumped up version of VMware Horizon desktops.

The VDIs are very easy to set up. 

The NetScaler Gateway is very complex to set up, if you want to get to the right level of security. If you just want to set it up and make it run, then it is easy and takes 30 seconds, but it doesn't do anything. It is crap. If you want to really set it up, it is very complex.

The primary steps are pretty much forced. You install the Director and Studio, then you install the deploy machine, which makes it run. I'm not an enterprise, so I don't need to worry about all the preplanning. I just deploy machines and provide some cyberware. I just put it on the machine and let it run. In this case, that is very good. It allows you to do this with no real proper pre-thinking about how many machines you need to deploy, etc. 

To set it up as I wanted, it took me one month. However, I don't do that as a job. I just did it as a hobby or for personal reasons, which are not my job. Then, I worked on it when I had the time, not all day. 

Where Citrix really needs to improve is in their support and in the way that they manage their licenses. Everything else comes second because if I'm not in a position where I can get proper support or manage my own licenses in an easy way, then it is pointless. Today, I am at a point where I may not be able to use Citrix anymore because they want to take away some of the licenses that I bought, pretending they are not valid anymore. That is frankly unacceptable. If they don't solve this, everything comes second because I cannot use my product.

On a scale from zero to 10, I would rate pricing a zero. They are trying to take away licenses that I bought because they say they are not valid anymore, even if they are stated as permanent. On the site, they are characterized as permanent. They insist this is an evaluation version that I'm not allowed to use as permanent, which means I will probably be in a position where I can't work anymore. So, their licensing system is bad. The fact that I cannot relocate my licenses alone, but I have to go through and use their support center makes it even worse.

I do not know other vendors aside from VMware, Citrix, and Microsoft Hyper-V, which I am using as well.

• VMware is easy to set up as a pro and more cluttered as a con. 
• Citrix, as a pro, is very quick. As a con, their support in the licensing system is so bad that I may leave it very quickly. 
• Hyper-V is well-integrated as a pro. I just started working on Hyper-V so I cannot give any real con yet because I'm not yet at that stage. I'm still figuring out how it works. I have virtual machines running on Hyper-V, but it is really too early to comment on this solution.

Go for VMware. Seriously, they are the same thing. 

I would rate the solution as a two (out of 10). I cannot give an eight or nine (out of 10) to a solution that works well if the provider does not put me in a position where I can use it.

Make sure that you have data sources in-house to manage every problem because support may be useless. Make sure that you discuss well in advance and get written proof of what you are buying from Citrix, because there lies a risk not being able to work on your solution anymore from one day to another.

I use the solution to give my workers access to several application in the form of Citrix internal applications for the company.

We had an old software that our servers did not support. So we moved to Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for cyber engineering in India and Mexico.

The support offered by Citrix's partner needs to improve. The partner support platform should aim to provide more technical information to users.

The solution is very expensive, including the license, and the support, of all the platforms.

For example, the solution of Microsoft, if you are partnered with Microsoft, you have access to the license, and you only need the variable servers from the virtualization with Microsoft.

I have been using the solution for six years.

It is a stable solution. We don't usually have problems with the platform, but escalating the issue is difficult.

It is a very scalable solution. In the last semester, we updated the video graphics on the virtualization and video 3D graphics for the simulation on the hardware, and it was implemented in three days. It took six to seven months to get the GUI and firewall, but that was because of the problem in the country rather than Citrix. Four thousand users are using the solution presently.

The technical support with Citrix is a nine but support with a partner is a four. So the problem with support is not with Citrix. It is more with the partner who was supposed to provide the solution.

Positive

Talking of my own experience, I have tried VMware and Microsoft Hyper- V solutions. But here in the company, Citrix is the only solution.

We recommended a partnership the first time we bought it from Citrix and Citrix. The partnership was closed several years ago, and the new partner could be better. It's not good. Now, Citrix has been bought by another company.

It's costly in the market. But it is not expensive for the company. For the company, it's relatively inexpensive because the core of the work is compensated with the price. Secondly, the price is included in the cost of the business.

Presently, we are in the process of evaluating other competitive solutions and collecting their names. I must propose an error to show why we must change or stay with Citrix.

People planning to use Citrix must take the right decision for their firm rather than evaluate the cost from the start. 

It is a robust solution. I rate it a nine out of ten.

I primarily was in charge of implementation and support. The solution itself was primarily used for remote access.

The solution was perfect for expanding the environment to host more remote access users during the pandemic.

The ability to allow users to have remote access is the product's most valuable aspect.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

The solution scales well.

For the most part, overall stability is what you would expect.

The user profiles could use some improvement. They could use more stability and more functionality as well as user profile redirection.

I've used the solution since 2002 across several organizations. I have a lot of experience with the product as I've used it for quite a while at this point. I've used the solution within the last 12 months, however, for the contract I have now, I am not using it.

The user profiles could be more stable. 

The stability in general is pretty good. It is one of the numerous virtualization applications that have the same reliability as all the others; there's nothing different.

The scalability of the product is quite good and you can expand it if you need to.

It can expand into a larger organization and into an enterprise infrastructure from on-premise to a cloud environment.

I've been in touch with Citrix technical support and I would describe them as sufficient. They are okay in terms of the level of service they provide. 

It's my understanding that the company on my last project did not use a different solution before Citrix.

The initial setup was not overly complex or difficult. It was very simple and quite straightforward. Overall, it's a solution that is easy to implement and maintain. 

The initial deployment only took a few hours and maintenance is pretty minimal in terms of the time required. 

My strategy was to implement it to the required specifications. 

We had four people who handled the last implementation I did. 

Maintenance requires tasks such as image updates, patching, and support.

We help deploy the solution to our clients. We are able to handle any implementations. We don't work directly with Citrix, however, we do work with another third-party company. The experience we had with the company, overall, was positive. 

While I was on the project, I did not see an ROI.

We had a yearly license and we did named instances which I didn't like, due to the fact that they took away the concurrent. I tend to prefer concurrent as you don't get duplications.

The purchase price was around $300,000 USD and then the maintenance fees were 20%. There are no other additional fees.

I don't have any knowledge of the company evaluating anything before choosing Citrix. 

Our organization does not have a business relationship with Citrix. 

I cannot recall the exact version number I last used. It might have been 2106, however, I'm not sure. It was likely the latest version of the product.

I would advise those considering the solution to buy a maintenance contract alongside the solution. 

What I've learned, not so much from Citrix, but all of the virtualization applications is no matter how well your system runs, somebody will ditch. You need to be prepared for that.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Citrix XenDesktop is a great solution for VDI or virtual desktop environments. Its most valuable features to me are:

• Pretty good management: You can manage a full environment for VDI, you have full control of what your users do, what they can or can't install and what resources your users can use.
• Great performance: Of course, it depends on hardware and the hypervisor (Citrix XenServer and VMWare vSphere are the best). It provides great performance with NVIDIA GPU cards.
• Great performance on low bandwidth links: Citrix was born when I still used a phone modem with 33.5 Kbps, so Citrix created the ICA protocol that provides great performance when you use low links.
• Easy install: With a little bit of understanding, for a standard configuration, if you have a little knowledge of Citrix XenDesktop, you can implement a solution in a few days.

Mobility! You can access your virtual desktop with all your applications everywhere; with a smartphone, laptop, thin client and so on.

I would like to see the following improvements:

• Better monitoring tools included in the enterprise editions: At the moment, if you want better monitoring, you need to buy a third license.
• Linux virtual desktop: We have been waiting more than five years for it!
• Compatibility with public clouds: Today, Citrix doesn't have the best position with public clouds. I work for IBM and we have SoftLayer public cloud, and we want to offer DaaS (Desktop as a Service) to the public. Citrix is a great opportunity for us, but Citrix has to “speak” SoftLayer API language. Secondly, Citrix should have a public cloud offering with a license that final users can afford and not just an annual license.

I have used this solution for at least nine years.

Citrix XenDesktop can be very stable and has great scalability if a certified Citrix architect designs it. Many problems that I've seen in the past with clients were related to bad design. Citrix XenDesktop and XenApp have great stability if you take the correct path.

Citrix is very good with this, if you pay your maintenance every year. :P

I previously used the VMWare solution. It works great but only when you use LAN (at least 1 Gbps if you have many users), but in a WAN environment, I really don't like the lags and delays with that solution.

If you have a little knowledge about Citrix and what a VDI environment means, initial setup is not complex. If you want to do a good job, you must be prepared to know:

• Microsoft Windows Server (2008 R2 or 2012 R2)
• Microsoft Windows Desktop (Windows 7, 8.1 or 10)
• Active Directory
• DNS!!!!!
• Security, local policies, etc.
• DHCP
• Firewalls (local and for internet)
• Citrix NetScaler Gateway
• And so on!

I have a lot of experience with third-party consultants and of course Citrix vendors. I have Citrix Architect Certification, so I have implemented my own solutions, but for big projects, it's much better to count on Citrix itself.

It's very difficult to evaluate this because if you have a low number of users, it's much better to buy new PC's or low-resource laptops than use VDI. For many environments, it's much better to use Citrix XenApp with published applications and use a shared desktop as opposed to using XenDesktop.

If you have at least 1,000 users or use GPU or high-resource-consuming applications, Citrix XenDesktop is the best solution, but you won't see ROI for at least three years.

Many of my clients are looking for a DaaS with IBM SoftLayer.

Our installation is currently on-premises, but we have already decided that we will move to the cloud. In general, we are using XenApp to make a virtual protected environment in order to link our other applications through Citrix. We want to link data or applications, it depends on the case. Sometimes we don't want to have links from application to application but just for the applications to share the data which they are using. This product provides us some flexibility in the architecture.  

I'm not the end-user of the application. My position is very high in the organization. I know that the users who are using this product like it, but I don't know what exactly they like or what might make it separate from similar solutions. From my point of view, the reason they like it is this flexibility that they have. They can connect one application to another application or just to use the data. They have applications locally and use the data in the cloud in a very secure way. They have more flexibility using this solution.  

The place where this application can most probably be improved is in the integration with other environments. Right now we have it on-premises, but our plan is to have it on cloud and we have already taken steps with Microsoft to implement this goal. After we move it to the cloud, we will want to add other applications and other data sources to what is already available in order to more easily move the data from one place to another and to use it from different applications. Broader integration would give the user more flexibility. This is why, from my point of view, integrating with other environments is the most important feature that needs to be expanded.  

As an example, IBM has a cloud solution that gives users the capability to connect between different clouds. No matter what kind of cloud you are using the data becomes universal through the capabilities of the IBM solution. You can ensure data security and can move data from one cloud to another. This is the kind of thing I mean by integration. It is an integration of administrative work, resource usage and also of the different environments. Right now we have some things on-premise and we have part of it in the cloud. Most probably will be not only be using Microsoft cloud in the future but also Amazon and Google as well. We want to have this application everywhere in this environment and to be able to use only one interface to let us know what volume of resources we are using, how much different solutions cost us, and if our usage is effective. This way we can make evaluations and change if necessary. The economy of our model is very important for us.  

The other less important point is that the deployment could be faster. We deployed the solution with the help of a vendor, and I do not blame the vendor that things seemed to come together a little slowly because it was not easy to do. I think the implementation can be simplified a little by the manufacturer.  

I have been using this product for around three years.  

XenApp is a very stable solution. This is one of the reasons we were using it. I had some experience with the product at the previous company and we decided just to use the same solution for this company because it is really stable.  

I don't know yet how the product rates in the area of scalability. We are currently moving from one environment to another, and that is an early step in our process. I don't know about scaling because it is a step we will worry about later. These are interim steps we are taking in the plan that we have right now. Our end goal is to be completely in the cloud or in some kind of hybrid environment. When we achieve that, the next step is to use the application to scale. So we are still in a sort of proof of concept period right now where we don't want or have the need to test scalability.  

We currently have 53 people using the solution. Most of them are just users from the office, but we have around 10 engineers and IT people who are capable of doing everything we need for implementation and maintenance.  

Because we are using a partner to interface between us and Microsoft, we do not have contact with Microsoft's technical support. The partner has been successful in covering everything we need.  

I changed my employment over the past two years. Earlier, I was part of the pharmaceutical company Bcom and we were using the same XenApp product there. Then I moved to a smaller Bulgarian company. We were using a different version of Xenapp there and we had a somewhat different experience. The support that Microsoft provided was different in each case. In the first case, it was a global corporation. In the second case, it was a local group of companies and we were supported by the local Microsoft office.  

But in each case, the reason why I switched products was that I changed employment and not that I changed from an entirely different solution to this one.  

The level of difficulty of the initial setup depends on the situation. Because we have this application through a Microsoft provider which is directly working with Microsoft, they have enough staff and experience with it to set it up. It was very easy for us just to use them.  

If we had to do it alone, I don't believe we had the capacity to do it without a lot of trouble. We prefer this model of having some kind of agent who is more knowledgeable and experienced do the setup. They already know exactly how to set up the environment for using the application, and we would have had to learn it all anew.  

The deployment of the solution was more than five months, but it took that long because we probably caused some delay. We were not pushing for the implementation to be completed, we changed our offices, and many other things happened in between. So it is not because of the application or the group doing the deployment, but because we were moving slowly ourselves.  

We had a third party, the supplier, do the initial implementation for us.  

We did not evaluate other options when making the decision to take on this solution because I already had a positive experience with this product in the past. I wanted to use the same solution because I know it and I know that it works and that it would do what we needed it to do. Stability was the main factor in making the decision.  

Right now the computing environment is changing very fast with cloud, hybrid, containers and other options like that. We wanted to have something which was going to allow us to use a hybrid solution until we define the final model that we want to use.  

Advice that I would give to people considering this solution is to use our model of implementation. I absolutely recommend using a local supplier who is knowledgeable and who has experience with the product and deployment because then you won't have any problems. We are only using it. We don't care how it is set up. We don't care about the model itself, but only that the result fits our requirements. This supplier is doing all the things we don't want to have to learn for us.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a seven-out-of-ten.