NetScaler Reviews

We primarily use the solution for network load balancing on the edge of the network. 

The solution's most valuable feature is the content.

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. 

The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature.

The solution is pretty scalable. Right now, we are only using about 40-50% of the solution's capacity. We have about 4,000 users connecting through the system. Currently, we don't plan to increase usage.

Support has been okay so far. We only ever call about two times a year, but each time we get the right help. Once we called about custom features and they supported us quite well.

We previously used Kemp Load Balancer. We still have it as part of our infrastructure. The main difference between the two is the Citrix solution is part of a physical appliance, whereas the Kemp solution is a virtual appliance.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had a very good engineer that handled the implementation.

There are costs in addition to the licensing fees, so the overall price can begin to add up.

I would recommend the solution to people who need the services and features provided by Citrix. It's a wonderful product. We've never had any downtime on our NetScaler solution. I'm pretty happy with it.

I'd rate it nine out of ten.

The primary use of this solution is application delivery. It provides access.

This solution is a gateway to the public cloud.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is very light. Once you log in, you have your applications delivered. It is not heavy over the internet or the web.

My customers have told me that the performance of this solution is good.

I would like to see multifactor authentication added to this solution to improve the security.

In terms of stability, this solution is quite good.

There are some things that I am not fully clear about when it comes to the physical appliance because I have not used it before. Currently, I am using the virtual appliance and it is scalable.

We have approximately one hundred users. We have no plans to increase usage at this time.

My consultant handles the first level of technical support for me.

I have not tried other solutions.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex. I think that it's quite simple.

The deployment takes approximately one or two days.

I have a consultant who handles the deployment of this solution for me.

We have the option of configuring the workspace or the receiver for clients to connect, or they can use the URL option and then login. I prefer using the URL that is on the web.

This is a solution that I have used for years and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide security and ensure the viability of our services.

The services are almost 100% available to everybody. The solution is invisible for our clients, so by using it, nobody knows that anything is broken because we're hiding the service behind it. It works behind the scenes, in the background, and it keeps everything running smoothly.

The web application firewall which protects our services on the internet, and then of course services like our ability to provide high availability for the services we are offering are the most valuable features. 

The user interface could be more friendly. Some wizards and other documentation for administrators, as well as some use cases, helps us to understand the solution.

The solution is very stable. On the client side, we have several thousand users. In the company itself, I would say there are more than one hundred users.

The solution is very scalable.

Technical support is good.

No, we haven't been using any other solution.

For deployment, it depends on the maturity of the client. If it's the services that are going to be supported by the solution or if it's just a new one, but the number of services is very low, then the implementation would take a week. If you are implementing a major infrastructure project that will support lots of services, then it becomes complicated, so there's no idea really how long it would take.

For our company's size and complexity, I would say it's straightforward.

Most clients, rather rarely, have a dedicated person to maintain just that solution but almost anybody from the operational team can watch it, so I don't know how many people you would need for deployment and maintenance. I haven't done a headcount.

We provide the consultancy ourselves.

This is a type of product that, in terms of security, the moment you implement it, it has an ROI because it secures the home system in the sense that no data is lost. No secrets get out.

There are some add ons to the standard licensing that you can buy for the basic version. You can extend with some add ons, or you can buy the premium version, so it depends on what your clients need. They get the packet and then they can do the add ons.

We were looking at different options according to price. We looked at the F5. The Citrix pricing was good for what it offers.

It's always a really good idea to do a POC. There are companies that are not convinced as to why should they should use something, but a POC is a good way to show why. 

The quality of the service is higher, simply, and that's what you need. So that's why we are using the solution. Also, there are lots of securities that integrate with the solution, so it's good. You can very easily find a way for almost every customer to use it.

I would rate this solution as a 9 out of 10. The performance is very good. The price is also good. 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.

Our primary use case is the hosting and delivering of web applications.

The product has helped us a lot with load balancing because we had limited experience with it.

The most valuable feature is the management and application delivery for Layer 7 traffic.

At the current time, the solution is not missing any features that I would like to have implemented.

This is a stable product that we have used since 2014.

This solution is scalable, and the sizing is defined by the amount of traffic. Our first box supports up to five hundred megabits of traffic, whereas our second box supports traffic of five gigabits. We will consider making use of this solution in any project going forward.

We have a contract with the re-seller, who has good expertise. If they cannot fix the issue then they escalate it to Citrix, where the tickets are usually solved. Sometimes this takes a little longer because of the multilevel ticket priority. Ideally, it should be possible for the re-seller to assign it directly to level three.

Prior to this, we used the Cisco ACE solution until the product was discontinued.

The initial setup was a little complex. We needed to choose the right partner to assist us with setup and implementation.

We contracted our re-seller to help with installation and setup. The deployment took approximately one month.

We have a yearly licencing fee, and there are no additional costs.

We used Cisco ACE, and they were the ones who recommended that we switch to this solution. We took their advice and we are pleased with it.

Customers need to look to the future and purchase the right model for their necessities. A new license can be purchased, rather than additional boxes.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for the product is server load balancing, specifically the application level.

We are able to offer more support to our customers.

The most valuable feature is the capability of performing load balancing in a virtual environment.

They need to implement and integrate security solutions. Specifically, a web application firewall.

I would give this solution nine out of ten for stability. It is not perfect because at times I was faced with an issue where the application was getting a lot more traffic than is desirable, and I can see Citrix having issues with this.

We have close to fourteen hundred clients using this solution. We expect this to increase, but it is dependent on clients' needs in terms of load balancing.

Some of our clients use the F5 load balancing solution, but that is only ten to fifteen of approximately fourteen hundred clients.

It is a pretty easy setup. You don't need to change anything related to your IT configuration, MAC addresses, or switching tables.

We implement this solution for our clients. We use a template based approach, so normally it can be deployed in a fraction of minutes. One person is sufficient for the deployment and maintenance of this product.

I recommend this product to customers because they have a ninety day free-trial period. This is a good solution for people who also have a budget constraint.

We have a five year platinum licensing agreement, which does not incur additional costs of any kind.

I would rate this product eight out of ten.

We are a Citrix solution adviser and one of the main Citrix partners in Bangkok, Thailand. We use Citrix NetScaler ADC to get user access to business applications on desktop devices. 

With Citrix NetScaler ADC we can centralize desktop application management for everything.

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. 

It mobilizes everything in and out, leading over bandwidth and manages all of the applications. We use it for front-end crafting.

There are a lot of features. It has to keep up with the demands of the network for complete file management. Citrix should improve the documentation. It is not really clear how to set up many features to our advantage. When we setup Citrix NetScaler ADC, we have to figure it out by ourselves without a lot of documentation. 

More than five years.

Rules configuration is the key issue for stability. We can get a lot of rule-based configuration and risk management tools with the platform.

Scalability is really cool because NetScaler isn't tied to any complexity or hard time model. It creates a delivery unit and every platform uses it.

Citrix NetScaler ADC is really flexible. We have lots of customers using it. We have banking, financial, software, themes, energy companies, etc. using it. We have from ten to 100+ clients deployed with Citrix NetScaler ADC. 

Technical support from Citrix is pretty good and they respond pretty fast, but the issue is that when we have some configurations that are problematic, they don't always know how to fix them.

When we integrate Citrix NetScaler with an app or desktop, the technical support from Citrix doesn't know how to configure NetScaler. They don't collaborate well. Their communication is sometimes lacking. They speak too fast. Overall, though, Citrix provides good support.

We started as a Citrix client at first. We used NetScaler in the very beginning. For a long time, we have only used this one product.

The installation and deployment of Citrix NetScaler ADC are easier than the competitors. It is not complex. It can be complex, but you can decide to make it not complex. 

The deployments for each project depends on customer requirements. Some take one month, others resolve in two to four months.

For the deployment of Citrix NetScaler ADC, about two or three people is enough. Wiring is simple but the hard part is the orchestration. 

We completed the integration by ourselves.

Licensing is adequate. I wanted to have a more prominent license, but until I do they don't give enough support. The additional cost would be too much. 

If NetScaler is broken, we can open tickets very quickly and request shipment for the new unit or a spare part replacement.

Citrix NetScaler already has tons of features, already too many. We want any new advanced features that they release. One thing that scares me is that with existing products, Citrix does not have detailed documentation ready before they release. Otherwise, it would be better. From my experience, when Citrix launches something new there are a lot of bugs, a lot of errors, required patches, and no documentation. You have to get help. 

Citrix needs to create better documentation. Sometimes when I enable NetScaler, it makes the box crash randomly. I have to wait for three or four release cycles to fix it. The introduction of new features from Citrix for NetScaler always has a lot of problems. 

I would rate Citrix NetScaler eight or nine out of 10. To make the product better, Citrix needs to provide full documentation for each user with video tutorials. Configuration scenarios and demos would also be helpful. We have a lot of customer demand for this better documentation and setting up Citrix NetScaler is really complicated.

Our primary use case is for proxy firewalling. 

In South Africa, we're going through load-shedding. When our primary link goes down I can still get to my Cisco devices and the NetScaler devices on-prem because of the SDN solution. If the internet connection at one of the branches goes down, we can still route them, they still get internet based on the SDN solution through one of the other sites. They can carry on working.

We incorporated all three because of the fact that we have one central proxy server and everything's on an SDN, so we can get any device anywhere anytime.

Security could be improved because then I can get rid of my Cisco firewalls. If they improve the security then I could run my security, my proxy, my firewalling and my SDN solution on one device instead of having to have multiple devices.

We have 55,000 people around the country and we have plans to roll the solution out worldwide.

The initial setup was complex because we've got different applications so the firewalling needs to be done properly and then we actually do IP subnet changes at certain times. We decided to go to all sites. We did a subnet change on all sites and then we deployed NetScaler. We did the head office first and then we went site by site.

Deployment between nine sites around the country took about four weeks. 

We only require one person for maintenance. Deployment took three people. 

The standard licensing fees work in the way that you get one license with it for whatever you're going to be utilizing it for. We integrated the firewall, the proxy services, and the SDN.

We also looked at FortiGate and Palo Alto. 

The advice I would give somebody researching this solution is to do your research properly and see what's the best solution for the company and the company's needs before you make a decision. You can't just randomly pick a device. You have to do your investigations first. Put in proof of concepts, speak to your seniors. You must tell them what exactly is your company requirements and which device is going to suit those requirements the best.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We primarily use it for load balancers. 

It has helped us to increase the resiliency and performance of the application.

There are multiple features that I have found to be valuable including load balancing, supply authentication, web for application firewall, and the reverse proxy.

The technical support has room for improvement. 

Stability is amazing. 

Scalability is amazing. There are 1,000 plus employees that are using it. Anybody from the CEO to the technicians or the receptionists.

The initial setup was straightforward. We only required one staff member for the deployment. 

You get the value for your money. There aren't any hidden fees. 

It's one of the best application delivery controllers available in the market and it requires very minimal administrative effort to manage it.

I would rate it a ten out of ten.