Citrix Gateway Reviews

The most valuable features are security and authentication.

The session monitoring capability is good.

I would like to see improved logging because it doesn't keep much information for the session monitoring or historical sessions.

We have not had any trouble with stability, aside from our setup issues.

We have had no issues with scalability.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

The initial setup is quite straightforward because we have been using it for some time. We did experience some setup issues, which were mostly related to misconfiguration.

The time for deployment is perhaps a week or less.

We have an in-house team that handles deployment and maintenance.

This is a solution I would recommend.

Overall, this is a good solution that is stable, but I would like to see improvements to the logging capability.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to give solutions for automating subject data. We provide automation solutions and build the APAs around Citrix Netscaler. 

What I find most valuable about this solution is that it runs seamlessly. It is very streamlined. 

Areas that should be improved are the configuration of profiles and uploading and downloading of our certificates.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler Unified Gateway for around two years now.

The previous version was very stable and so far I haven't had any bugs or issues with the newer version. 

The version we're currently using isn't as scalable as the previous one.

I haven't used their technical support yet.

The initial setup was easy and straightforward. After reading the documents provided, I was able to do everything myself. 

We haven't looked at other solutions, because our client preferred Citrix NetScaler Unified Gateway, so we had to comply with that.

On a scale from one to ten, I will rate this solution an eight. In the next version, I would like to see better configuration of repairs and downloading certification. Better exposure would also be a plus. 

We are working on a software-defined network spanning Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zambia. We looking for a solution that promise to extend the benefits of virtualization into the core of our networking infrastructure

So far the DevOps team has been able to deliver apps with a consistent feel. This is still an internal project but we are pretty much excited with way it is going

It's a stable solution while it's running. We don't have to work on it a lot. There are not many bugs, so it's easy to use if you deploy successfully. You can be sure of an uninterrupted solution for quite a long time. Citrix is a good product. scales easily and works with azure and aws

Cost. Citrix costs more and you still need to have Microsoft Remote Desktop below it. 

There are no glitches or bugs, as long as you get the initial installation right without any problems. Then you can be sure of a solution that runs without much need of hands-on supervision.

Citrix solutions are easily scalable, considering that they run on top of the Microsoft platform.

We run it in at most 15-person offices, but we're starting to see what happens if we run it through three data centers, two of which are outside the country. That's what we will be working on next month. We are in plans of deploying the solution to a greater number of users.

The Citrix customer support is good. You should not have any problems from Citrix.

The initial setup is straightforward. A mid-level system integrator can deploy the solution.

Usually, with Citrix the issue is the pricing, especially for the African region. We believe it's really expensive.

Get access from a Citrix partner, because you are sure of support from them. Also, make sure that the partner you partner with has the right skills to actually deploy the solution.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We use Citrix NetScaler as a WAF gateway to protect web applications, with Multi-tenancy. We have also enabled SSLVPN ( Remote access ) and Mobile Device management on the same solution.

The features that we have found most valuable are the web app support and VPN. 

Citrix NetScaler is something that connects the deployment. To improve:

• The interface should be more user-friendly.
• Integration with other applications must improve.
• They should provide training videos. 
• The product needs to have a good dashboard.
  

It's too early to say how the product can improve because I just implemented it. 

The dashboard or interface should be more clear in reporting issues. Integration with other applications should be more user-friendly.

I would rate the stability of Citrix Netscaler an eight out of 10.

I would rate the scalability of Citrix Netscaler an eight out of 10.

We want Citrix to do their support level at a higher standard. They should provide some training videos for us.

We used Barracuda. We switched from Barracuda because Citrix offered better features and scalability.

The initial setup was complex to install. It took almost three weeks.

We used a reseller. Our experience with them was not bad. It was standard and issue-free.

The ROI will depend on the business model. 

We have an annual license.

We also evaluated F5 and Barracuda WAF.

I would recommend to other people to implement this product. Use Citrix Netscaler. It is 100%. Otherwise, I would give only a five or six out of 10 for the product.

We primarily use the solution for load balancing.

The unified gateway and the active gateway, particularly used for desktop load balancing for web servers are the most valuable.

The solution easily integrates with other solutions.

The solution can be a bit pricey.

The stability of the solution is perfect.

Technical support is okay.

The initial installation is very easy.

We use public and private cloud deployment models.

For the use cases we have, the solution is perfect.

It's a very mature product, it is working very nicely and it's very well established. I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use the solution for the control of application delivery.

All of the features are quite valuable, including the node balancing and gateway.

The VPN needs to be improved. In comparison to Cisco, the solution doesn't have as many features.

Technical support needs improvement.

The solution is very stable. If I were to rate it out of ten, I would give stability a nine.

Scalability is okay. Out of ten, I would rate it at seven.

Technical support is not good. I would rate them five out of ten.

The initial setup is very complex.

You need the assistance of a consultant to implement the solution properly.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

If you compare the solution to Fortinet, Citrix Unified Gateway is good. If you compare the solution to Cisco, no, it's not so good.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

I work for a Citrix Partner, so Citrix Netscaler (now ADC) is one the pillars for our sollutions. we propose and implement for our customers. For them, security is the main gain as well as service, availability, flexibility for moving the workloads within different environments, and using different hybrids.
Aside the funtionality and features, it's simple and very user-friendly to deploy and maintain.

I've found the security features like web application firewall, the tri-scale capability  as well  the portability. You can have the NetScaler platform in different formats, you can have it as regular physical appliance, virtual appliance, on a container, multi-tenant appliances, and even on bare metal. there are, of course, some minor diferences related to the platform the physical resources you're using, but the code and funtionality is basically the same. it gives you a lot of flexibility.

The solution is already very feature rich, but there are also points for improvement.
Fortunatelly, at least so far and with the projects we've been involved, Citrix Support and engineering teams are very responsive and very willing to align with customer specific requests to develop new functionality and enrich the solution.

For the next releases, i'm expecting (even) more focus on visibility and analytics.

it is very stable. and even the upgrade processes are very strainghforward.

It's very scalable. You have the tri-scaler capaability with which you can use and have up to 32 NetScaler ADC nodes.

It's software, it has its bugs, it's normal. The support has been very helpful. The engineering team is also responsive. From time to time we find a new bug and there's a good response from the support and the engineering team. They tend to solve it for instance, with a new version or by internally developing a specific patch.

We normally try to evaluate other options depending on the customers use case and objectives, but somehow we end up sticking with Citrix ADC since with we've started working with it.

Basic setup to have a ADC up and running is very simple, but integrating really depends on the customer environment and objectives.
We have customers that use it for everything, that can have more complexity so it depends on the environment.

I would say that generally, it's not complicated. You don't have to learn a specific language, or go very deep on a CLI.  It's not a big deal.

As mentioned before, setup is fairly simple and documented on the Citrix eDocs. 
there's a lot of information and how-to articles which facilitates all the setup.

The new pooled licensing model also can be very useful in hybrid or wide deployments.

yes, the major players on the ADC and remote access space.

You don't have a very steep learning curve as you do with other vendors. In terms of manageability, I think it's easy, and there's also available some tools like Citrix ADM which facilitates all the operation.

I would definitely recommend this solution.  It's very straightforward and easy to use.
can be used in a lot os use cases, from the pure traffic management, secure remote access to protecting critical web sites.

There's also a wide and participative community using the solution, so the use case and issue you face probably is already "googlable".

I would give this solution a nine out of 10.

We implement this solution for our customers.

Most of our customers are using the load balancing feature and the verification feature is good as well, in my experience.

The two-factor authentication solution needs improvement. It needs a multi-factor authentification.

Training videos would be helpful, and they're transitioning to a new portal, as far as I know. So the portal maybe has now improvements and they will provide for a larger community for the users and retailers. This will provide a more improved solution.

A forward proxy in the next release would be good, I think. If the solution had a more advanced DNS, it would be an improvement.

Stability is fine, depending on what features you are using.

Scalability is not good because they didn't change the solution. If you want to scale the product you have to install more and more appliances, and their solution technology is not good against the competition. We have less than ten thousand users.

The technical support is fine. It's not the best, but fine.

We are a reseller company, so we resell to our customers the product and we integrate it with other solutions.

Most of the product is good, but we prefer F5's networks against Citrix.

I would rate this solution as six out of ten.

We use NetScaler for the server and also Zen app.

The main challenge that we were facing is regarding the net application which does not work without this solution. We replaced NetScaler with the F5 solution.

I cannot say that now because it's just been six months. Nonetheless, we haven't received any complaints or performance issues so far.

The load balancing could be improved. Also, remote users should be able to carry connections to our centralized server and access applications remotely.

Stability is good I'd say. We did not face any issues this far; it's been running smoothly. We have a free application, which gives us up to 365 applications, so that comes to around 5000 users.

We were using F5 LTM (Local Traffic Manager) before. They are the market leader. We were using that, but we replaced it with the NetScaler.

The initial setup was very easy and we were able to fully deploy it, test it, and have all the applications migrated within a week. So, there's no major issue there.

The deployment strategy is very simple. We created just the domain IP. During migration, we reconfigured the replica of the current network solution, and we made the same verification in the NetScaler with the domain IP address. After the migration, we just stopped the F5 solution and enabled it on the NetScaler. So, the whole migration does not take even one minute of downtime.

We involved a consultant and they were very experienced.

I would rate this as ten out of ten because I don't see any issue and it is cheaper than F5. We are investing and getting additional features, such as features for applications. We get added value on that, which is good. We are getting everything we need.

• Netscaler Gateway
• Netscaler AAA
• Netscaler Content Switching/Load Balancing
• Central Application Delivery Controller with a huge feature set based on the latest requirements

We implement these solutions at many customer sites. This directly affects the productivity and gives the customer a very flexible solution.

The customers have the possibility to provide access to their applications and data, but the data itself won’t leave their data centers.

I can't think of anything at the moment.

We have been using NetScaler for five years.

We sometimes had issues after updates.

I would give technical support a rating of 10 out of 10.

We did not use a previous solution.

You need a very good concept and you have to do the conceptual work before you start implementing. Depending on the concept, the setup could be straightforward.

You have to do some hard work in order to get the suitable licenses.

We looked at VMware View in some projects.

All Citrix products are very flexible and give you a huge amount of possibilities. From a consulting perspective, I recommend allocating enough take time for project planning.