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

Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall [EOL] vs NetScaler comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 2, 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

Ivanti Virtual Web Applicat...
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
17th
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
44th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetScaler
Ranking in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
3rd
Ranking in Web Application Firewall (WAF)
21st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
Network Management Applications (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) category, the mindshare of Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall [EOL] is 2.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetScaler is 11.6%, down from 14.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
NetScaler11.6%
Ivanti Virtual Web Application Firewall2.5%
Other85.9%
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
 

Q&A Highlights

it_user712188 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a tech company
Jun 30, 2018
 

Featured Reviews

MD
Consultant at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
Good feature set and is simple to deploy
In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else. We sort of stopped deploying them because of that. There are additional costs to the standard licensing. There are bandwidth prices. The feature set is quite good. We've been told to stop using them because of the price. If they can do something to address that I believe it would be better. On the latest version they've got a community edition, which is quite a good bandwidth, but in essence, it's to address the entry-level price. When you get to 10 gig bandwidth, it's way too expensive.
MP
Senior Data Center Engineer at Axians
Load balancing and secure access have supported complex migrations and automation at scale
NetScaler has positively impacted my organization because I work for a system integrator and deploy it for customers. Many customers are really happy with NetScaler, except for the pricing, as Citrix has changed a lot of their pricing in the last two or three years when they transitioned to Cloud Software Group. However, despite that, I know customers are really satisfied with the technical capabilities that NetScaler provides. While I do not have specific outcomes or metrics from my customers, I think using Core Logic has made it much easier for the big municipality I mentioned to implement NetScaler as a total solution, thus speeding up their automation. There are likely many benefits, but I lack benchmarks or timing figures to quantify that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that it is simple to deploy. The deployment took us ten minutes."
"We have Citrix StoreFront to access everything from a remote desk, and we use it with Office 365 so that we can access Teams."
"The GSLB feature allows us to move services between data centers. We can do this in either a planned or unplanned manner. We have experienced service provider outages at our primary data center and GSLB will kick in to automatically modify DNS records to point to a secondary data center (active/passive). We also make use of GeoIP information to point clients to the closest data center for accessing applications."
"HTTP analysis and action; we have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions, and some of these custom apps are external and, via the content switching, we can use one IP and leverage various back-end web app servers."
"The product has helped us a lot with load balancing because we had limited experience with it."
"You get performance, and lots of features which are very flexible which give the opportunity to provide really advanced support and the quality of the services we are serving from the platform is high."
"Content Redirection based on application data is a wonderful feature which works absolutely fine with most of the web application, and it has good logics behind it to configure it, and secondly, Single sign-on with Citrix's own applications, like XenApp and XenDesktop."
"High availability, performance, and security are the main pillars. It enhances the security for accessing the applications."
"It's very easy to configure."
 

Cons

"In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else."
"Development team's response time could be better."
"We face challenges with the solution's firmware upgrades frequently."
"The solution should be able to scale more effectively than it does."
"I would like to see support for scripting, like "iRule", which gives you the option to implement any configuration which is not available out of the box."
"The licensing model and technical support of the solution could be improved."
"Alert Management could be improved."
"Citrix Web App and API Protection could improve in the area of licensing."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing for Citrix Web App and API Protection is unreasonable. I don't know the exact price, but I heard it's tens of thousands and it's a bit too much for the small country I live in."
"Regarding pricing, while it's expensive, I can't comment on the exact ROI without a budget analysis. However, in terms of service quality, it's worth the price."
"Citrix NetScaler's pricing is slightly above average but not overly expensive. I would consider F5 BIG IP to be the most expensive, Citrix NetScaler to be the second most expensive, and then Kemp Load Balancer to be the third."
"Price-wise, I feel that the solution is a little bit expensive."
"It all depends on the features that will be used and the number of accesses."
"The licensing costs for this solution vary depending on which model is being used."
"It is very pricey, but we get it. If you need the best, money shouldn't be a problem."
"Its licensing cost is much higher than other products, but it is acceptable because it is a one-time investment, and we are getting our requirements fulfilled when we buy this product. So, there is no issue with the pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) solutions are best for your needs.
918,614 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

it_user712188 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a tech company
Jun 30, 2018
Jun 30, 2018
Zeus was a great company - Its a shame Riverbed screwed up the acquisition and destroyed it. The product has been in a state of limbo for several years, I wouldn't trust Pulse to make anything out of it. Go with F5 or Citrix if you have the money. If money is an issue then go with Kemp or Loadbalancer.org which are #1 and #2 at the value end of the market. Radware is pretty cool as well - but ...
2 out of 5 answers
MS
network specialist at a pharma/biotech company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Jun 19, 2018
As far as I know, Netscaler has special hardware solution SDX where you can run virtual appliance (VPX) so much as you need and license determines the total system performance. It's not a problem for scaling virtual appliance by each application. You can ask Citrix managers for details. I hope it will be helpful.
GB
unemployed
Jun 19, 2018
My thought would be Barracuda Cloud WAF. This will work in 15 min. With lb and default templates. Go to demo.Barracuda.com Select WAF for hardware or select cloud. Additional info ask if needed
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
17%
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise59
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What advice do you have for others considering Citrix NetScaler?
My advice to others looking into using NetScaler is simply to go use it. I give this product an overall rating of 8.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Citrix ADM?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has revealed that the licensing recently changed to a plus model, which is manageable if you know what you are doing. However, the transition f...
What needs improvement with Citrix Web App and API Protection?
I think NetScaler can improve in pricing, and with the recent release of version 15.1, the successor to 14.1, there are claims of improved performance due to the kernel change. I believe that integ...
 

Also Known As

Pulse vWAF, Pulse Virtual Traffic Manager
Citrix ADC, Citrix NetScaler VPX, NetScaler Console, NetScaler Web Application Firewall, NetScaler VPX - Customer Licensed
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Gilt Groupe
ABB Schweiz, Aer Lingus, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Amnet Technology Solutions, Aramex International, Ascenty, Atos, Autodesk
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, HAProxy, NetScaler and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: October 2026.
918,614 professionals have used our research since 2012.