No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Citrix Gateway vs Ivanti Secure Access Client (ISAC) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 20, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Citrix Gateway
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
Universal Access Gateways (1st), SSL VPN (1st)
Ivanti Secure Access Client...
Ranking in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
28th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Enterprise Infrastructure VPN category, the mindshare of Citrix Gateway is 3.7%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ivanti Secure Access Client (ISAC) is 1.6%, down from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Citrix Gateway3.7%
Ivanti Secure Access Client (ISAC)1.6%
Other94.7%
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Enterprise Architect at Wipro Limited
Strong security and versatile features drive positive experience, but support responsiveness can improve
The main purpose of Citrix Gateway is to enforce the appropriate level of access to the correct user on the proper device under the correct conditions. This is enabled through Citrix Gateway combined with endpoint analysis and optional Citrix analytics for security. Regarding improvements, implementing adaptive access policies on Citrix Gateway could be enhanced, particularly in security posture. Although it enforces real-time contextual access control based on device, user network risk, certain aspects can be improved. Other areas for improvement include BYOD access control and risk-based decision-making. Additionally, there is potential for reducing administrative overhead by applying policies dynamically based on context rather than static rules. Incident response speed is another area that could be enhanced.
Kaushlendra Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager - IT Infrastructure and Network at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Integrates well, highly reliable, but lacking reporting
Pulse Client is used as a client VPN or an SSL VPN The most valuable feature of Pulse Client is integration with Google authenticator for two-factor authentication. Pulse Client could improve the reports. The reports are not in PDF and we can't check the details in the reports of users who are…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Citrix Gateway is stable once I am connected."
"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."
"For our use case, it was scalable. There were at least 25 end users using this solution from remote locations. And once the connection was established, there weren't any complaints."
"Provides good performance and speed."
"Just creating that gateway to the storefront for Citrix is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us."
"Aside the functionality and features, it's simple and very user-friendly to deploy and maintain."
"The solution has very flexible configuration."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the web app support and VPN."
"Pulse Client is a very good solution; it is very easy to manage, and very stable."
"It also provides an auto-connect feature. When you turn on your laptop and put it on auto-connect, it automatically connects."
"The most valuable feature of Pulse Client is integration with Google authenticator for two-factor authentication."
"The scalability of Pulse Client is good."
 

Cons

"Citrix Gateway could improve the speed of the VPN. I sometimes have to wait for 10 to 15 minutes to get connected and other times when I am connected I have to abort, and reconnect."
"The product should be more secure."
"The monitoring site could be much better because monitoring NetScaler and Citrix Gateway is too difficult with just SNMP traps available."
"I'd like to see support for reverse proxy and more security features."
"I would like to see improved logging because it doesn't keep much information for the session monitoring or historical sessions."
"Security enhancements could be made, and technical support could be improved."
"The tool must provide better integration and connectivity."
"At this time it costs 35% more than other solutions."
"Pulse Client could improve the system tokens for authentication."
"Ivanti Secure Access and Zscaler provide secure access to corporate networks, their methods and features may differ."
"Pulse Client could improve the reports. The reports are not in PDF and we can't check the details in the reports of users who are using the VPNs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are two or three different models, but you can actually have a CapEx where you purchase the unit outright and then there's a yearly maintenance cost on top for years two and three, and four, or you can actually do a subscription purchase through Citrix cloud and you pay on a monthly basis, or you can have a three-year subscription contract as well. I give the solution a six out of ten for its cost."
"I consider Citrix Gateway to be an expensive solution, generally ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 yearly, depending on the model."
"The solution has a yearly licensing fee."
"There is a need to make yearly payments for licensing purposes. Also, it is not an expensive one."
"It is expensive and requires proper planning with strategy."
"Usually with Citrix the issue is the pricing, especially for the African region. We believe it's really expensive."
"The price could be lower."
"Pricing is very high if you do a comparison with what is available in the market."
"Pulse Client has two types of licenses. One is subsistence-based and the second is perpetual-based. The license cost is good, it is not very costly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Performing Arts
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise17
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Citrix Gateway?
The price is one aspect, but technically it is complete. Technically, it is really complete.
What needs improvement with Citrix Gateway?
I see room for improvement in several areas. The monitoring site could be much better because monitoring NetScaler and Citrix Gateway is too difficult with just SNMP traps available. Improving the ...
What is your primary use case for Citrix Gateway?
I am on the customer side using Citrix products, specifically Citrix CVAD for Virtual and Desktop virtualization. I am using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service. We are using Citrix Gateway an...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Citrix NetScaler Unified Gateway
Pulse Client
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aeronamic, Avianca, Bechtel Corporation, Betfair UK, Catholic University Leuven (K.U. Leuven), Centene Corporation, Cerner, Charityshare, City of High Point, Clark Builders
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Citrix Gateway vs. Ivanti Secure Access Client (ISAC) and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.