NetScaler Reviews

I use Citrix NetScaler to secure and reliable access to our back-end applications hosted in our data center. With its robust features like SSL security, content switching, load balancing, and application firewalling, it streamlines traffic management and enhances overall performance while keeping our data safe from threats.

The most valuable feature for us is the application firewalling in Citrix NetScaler, ensuring only valid traffic enters our environment. Additionally, it provides insights into the origin and destination of traffic within our data center, giving us control and visibility over our network performance.

Citrix NetScaler is a robust product, but mastering it requires significant learning and training due to its complexity. While it could be easier to manage, it is like transitioning from driving a car to flying a plane – a different experience altogether. 

Additional features could include better integration with community-developed scripts and APIs, making it easier for users to access and utilize these resources. Streamlining the interface and ensuring standardization would enhance usability and provide smoother integration with third-party services.

I have been working with Citrix NetScaler for about 20 years.

I would rate Citrix stability at nine out of ten because it is solid, but many issues stem from neglecting regular maintenance. If you overlook upkeep like clearing disk space, even the best products can falter, but it is not the fault of Citrix NetScaler itself.

The scalability of Citrix NetScaler is impressive, ranging from small setups to handling gigabit-level traffic. It is designed for clustering and can sync data traffic across multiple interfaces, making it highly adaptable to varying needs. In our organization, we serve several large clients, with some deployments handling up to 7,000 users daily.

The technical support is very good.

Setting up Citrix NetScaler can vary from straightforward to complex, depending on the deployment requirements. For basic setups, it is easy, but for more intricate configurations involving clusters and firewall settings, it becomes complex and requires expertise. While there are ARM templates available for deployment, understanding your specific needs is crucial for achieving the desired outcomes.

Using Citrix NetScaler provides immense value to our organization. Its indispensable role is in facilitating remote access and managing various assets, whether on-premises, cloud, or hybrid.

Having a robust load balancer like Citrix NetScaler is essential for our infrastructure. While there are other options like F5 and Azure load balancers, NetScaler stands out with its comprehensive features beyond just basic traffic routing, offering advanced functionalities like security controls, content switching, and application firewalling.

Citrix NetScaler enhances our application delivery by intelligently directing traffic to healthy servers and services. It ensures that even if a server is up, but its services are down, traffic is rerouted to functioning servers, preventing downtime and ensuring a smooth user experience. With built-in probes, it continuously monitors the health of services, identifying issues and optimizing traffic flow accordingly.

The SSL upload feature in Citrix NetScaler has significantly improved our security by encrypting traffic and ensuring data integrity. Additionally, the global server load balancing capability allows us to efficiently host multiple services behind a single static IP address, streamlining deployment and reducing the need for multiple certificates and IP addresses.

The analytics and reporting capabilities of Citrix NetScaler have improved significantly in the past year.

For those considering Citrix NetScaler, my advice is to research its capabilities thoroughly to understand which features align with your needs. Start by experimenting with one feature at a time and learn as you go to maximize its potential for your organization.

Overall, I would rate Citrix NetScaler as a nine out of ten.

Citrix Web App serves as a valuable solution for enhancing security in IT, particularly within API environments. This aspect is crucial for ensuring security.

I prefer this solution because of its user-friendly interface. I find it simple and close to what I am currently using, which is Citrix Fortiva Access for Multi-Factor Authentication. I appreciate the familiar user interface and troubleshooting tools it offers.

I am not an expert in this solution, but simplicity and user-friendly interfaces are crucial for me. I would appreciate advice from Citrix, particularly in the form of an interactive guide for API protection. It would be helpful if they could provide specific points and recommendations for cybersecurity, indicating areas that need attention or improvement. I find such interactive guidance valuable.

I have been using Citrix Web App for the past five years. 

I would rate it 9 out of 10.

I would rate the scalability 8 out of 10. 

I have interacted with them only once and they respond well.

Positive

I am familiar with Citrix, and I acknowledge that it is a good solution. Generally, our customers also prefer it. While I recognize other options as a good solution, personally, I have a preference for Citrix. It is easier for me to work with Citrix, and this preference is based on my experience.

I did not encounter any difficulties during the installation process. I don't recall the exact duration, but it might have taken around two hours in total.

There are ten individuals in our team in Turkey, including engineers and specialists.

In Turkey, everything is good, but it seems expensive for us due to the currency exchange. I don't have a specific rating scale, but if I had to rate the price, I would say it's around a six out of ten.

I would recommend it for other users and rate it 8 out of 10. 

We are using the solution for SSL offloading and load balancing.

The configuration for the solution's web application firewall is complicated. It requires technical knowledge. They should improve the process.

We have been using the solution for almost 12 years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight. We have 8000 solution users in our organization.

The solution's technical support is good.

In comparison with Azure and Cisco products, Citrix is a stable solution.

The solution's initial setup process is easy.

The solution is expensive compared to Azure. We purchased its three-year license model.

The solution needs enhancement from a security standpoint. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We're using NetScaler for compression and optimization features.

Most of the functions are user-friendly and great. We also have mobile features that are simple but effective.

There are some drawbacks, such as using EUG for certain configurations. It could definitely be improved. Moreover, compression features could be better since it uses too much CPU and is not very effective.

In terms of additional functionality, the capture feature could be improved to make it easier to use, and schedules could also be better for me.

I have been using this solution for eight years. 

There are nine users in our organization using this solution. It is a stable solution within this capacity. Sometimes we faced bugs, but in general, it hasn't affected the general usage.

If you use the latest version, it is quite a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability of NetScaler an eight out of ten. 

We've had poor experiences with customer support partners in the past two years. If some company changes, it's a bad thing. The customer support is not good for us. It is not helpful as well as have very slow response time. 

The initial setup is actually very simple.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would definitely recommend using the solution.

My organization uses Citrix ADM mainly for optimization and content delivery so that the desktops and applications can be delivered to the users without compromising security.

When it comes to virtual machines, latency is the only concern we have. The most impressive thing about Citrix ADM is that we don't encounter latency.

Citrix ADM needs to improve its additional features and reduce the communication ports. It should be directly integrated with the hybrid cloud environment. Currently, we use Windows Connect Now. If Citrix ADM collaborates with Microsoft Azure, we can directly deploy from AWS or the Azure console.

I would like to add serverless computing to Citrix ADM. For example, if we separate Citrix Cloud Connector, the legacy environment is still required. We need different servers for Citrix hosts, VDA, Delivery Controller, and StoreFront.

All these components can be combined into a larger single server unit. So, instead of getting ten servers for the same configuration, we can get a single server for two or three configurations. Reducing the number of servers will definitely reduce the cost.

We need to buy or rent servers to use Citrix as a product. From a customer’s perspective, even if Citrix does not reduce its cost, these improvements can help us reduce our expenses.

I have been using Citrix ADM for the past five years.

Compared to Kubernetes and Docker, Citrix ADM’s stability is good. However, I do not think Citrix ADM will survive much longer in the market.

I believe that Citrix ADM is a scalable solution. We have around three lakh employees domestically; my whole organization runs on Citrix ADM. There might be more users in our global branches.

Citrix support is good. One issue I faced with the support was that the support personnel did things we already knew. It would be helpful if Citrix could provide some extended support.

The initial setup is neither easy nor difficult. There are a set of rules and regulations and a set of suites. The installation of each component in a suite depends on the specific requirements and the components used.

I don’t see it as a difficulty. It is just a process that we have to perform. As an administrator, it is very simple to deploy and make it available to the users, no matter the requirement.

Citrix ADM is worth its price since there are not many options available for us within our project.

Citrix ADM costs us approximately $5000 per month.

We have services on Citrix Cloud as well as the on-premise environment. I do not see any job vacancies or job postings related to Citrix ADM recently, as opposed to one or one and a half years ago.

There is an issue regarding the cost associated with Citrix ADM and the users who use it. The user experience and the content we are delivering make a huge difference. Serverless computing is already on the way. I do not see much future for Citrix ADM. Citrix might be deploying cloud connectors, but I don’t see much difference.

I would definitely suggest Citrix ADM to people. The end users are not much affected by Citrix ADM. My organization is in partnership with Citrix ADM. I rate Citrix ADM an eight out of ten.

Our organization uses Citrix NetScaler for application load balancing, global server load balancing, and web application firewall. We also use its gateway feature for remote connectivity.

The web application firewall is one feature I found valuable in the solution.

I feel that Citrix NetScaler's customer support needs to improve. Basically, I want the customer support team to be more customer friendly.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler for more than ten years. Presently. I am using the latest version of the solution.

Citrix NetScaler is amazing when it comes to the stability it provides to its users. So, if we just configure the solution and leave it as it is, it can run for years without needing maintenance work. We never got into any trouble with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. In our organization, more than 1000 people are using the solution. Since most of the services are already delivered by Citrix ADC, the solution is being used 24/7 by the people in our organization.

Previously, we had contacted the solution's technical support team a couple of times. The technical support team was responsive and willing to help us whenever we contacted them. I rate the solution's technical support team a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward. The solution's deployment process probably took around two to three days.

The department process is simple since one just needs to get the device, connect it to their network, and make the required configurations.

Only a network administrator from the network operations team is required to deploy and maintain the solution.

The solution's implementation process was carried out with the help of a reseller.

Using the solution, I have seen a return on investment.

The solution offers subscription-based licenses. Price-wise, I feel that the solution is a little bit expensive. But it is really worth the money.

I would tell those planning to use the solution that it is worth the money. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is used primarily for load balancing and content switching, but we also use it for VPN, SSL VPN, and ICA Proxy. One of the bigger use cases that comes up often is web application firewalling and security. There's a lot of growth in our clients' environments at the moment. There's also significant regulatory compliance required and we deploy ADC with multifactor authentication to have a layer of protection for our customer information. We are partners of Citrix and resellers of this solution. 

The web application firewalling component is probably the most powerful feature as it can identify attacks on the network at an application level which is quite important. There is also good functionality where we use IP reputation and geofencing to mitigate threats from the outside world.

Citrix can improve their quality assurance by ironing out security vulnerabilities before releasing upgrades. They are quite proactive in identifying vulnerabilities, but it would be helpful if they could identify them prior to release. The support on the ADCs isn't that great and there's a lot of work required with upgrading plant environments because of security vulnerabilities that come to light. I'd also like to see some improvement on the monitoring side. Things are better than they were but the interface can be a little cumbersome sometimes. It's not always easy to get the information that you're looking for.

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

Stability is pretty good. Our company has logged perhaps one or two calls for stability issues, but they have generally related to environment variables that are outside our control.

Scaling up or out is fairly straightforward. Based on the software license, we can unlock additional capacity, functionality and throughput purely by installing a higher-rated license. From an upgrade point of view, it's not a case of ripping and replacing hardware every so often, the solution is fairly robust in that sense.

Complexity of the initial setup depends on the use case. It can be fairly straightforward depending on what you're trying to achieve, but the more complex deployments are, of course, more complicated. Depending on the use case, deployment can take anywhere from a day to a couple of weeks. On the web application firewalling side, it can take some time, but standard ICA proxy, SSL, VPN, load balancing, and content switching, are fairly straightforward to get up and running quickly. We have 15 users in our company.

Licensing depends on your environment and the size and scale of the deployment. There are options to purchase a standard, advanced or premium license, each of which unlocks different feature sets and capabilities. We also have a throughput license that ties into that, whether it's 20, 100 or 200 megs. It really depends on the environment. If I look at competitors such as F5, the costs and functionalities we offer are the same but at a much-reduced cost.

Whether this is a suitable solution depends on what the client's trying to achieve, the type of applications they want to publish, and the security metrics they're looking at. We provide predominantly Citrix-based solutions so if there is a use case, we would definitely recommend Citrix, not only because of its functionality, but because that's our specialization. We implement the full stack of Citrix solutions.

Because of the functionality, scalability and stability of the solution as a whole, I rate ADC eight out of 10. 

Citrix ADC is deployed on our VMware cluster. We use Citrix ADC for Virtual Virtual Desktop Infrastructure(VDI), load balancing, and SSL offloading.

The most valuable feature of Citrix ADC is its ease of use.

Citrix ADC can improve if it provides a more user-friendly interface and clear working protocols. Citrix is not working with classic RFC, it is working with Citrix RFC, which is not common in the world. If engineers of Citrix can provide us with more information on working with the classic IP networks it would be a benefit.

I have been using Citrix ADC for approximately three years.

The stability of Citrix ADC is not working well. We have one cluster of firewalls and the firewall can switch from active mode to standby mode, but in active mode, Citrix is not recognizing the ARP or MAC address. When the ARP lease timer ends it is working properly again.

We have approximately 10,000 users using Citrix ADC.

The main IT and network security departments are using this solution the most.

I wrote many emails about the lease ARP timer problem we were facing to Citrix, but they did not respond to my question.

I have previously used F5 BIG-IP. Citrix is more user-friendly and scalable for engineers for doing configuring. The dashboards and interface are better in Citrix ADC than F5 BIG-IP.

I found Citrix ADC the better solution.

The initial setup of Citrix ADC is easy. I have been doing it for many years.

We have 10 network engineers that do the configuration and maintenance of Citrix ADC.

F5 BIG-IP is much more expensive than Citrix ADC. For example, If we choose two platforms, Citrix ADC, 3000 version, and we choose F5, F4200 version. F5 BIG-IP has connections, timers, and throughput similar to Citrix ADC, but the price is very expensive.

Citrix ADC is scalable.

I recommend Citrix ADC to all of my friends and engineers.

I rate Citrix ADC a nine out of ten.

We provide services to our customers related to Citrix ADC.

The reverse proxy for virtual apps and desktops, along with load balancing, stands out as the most valuable feature. The flexibility in configuration options is impressive.

I just hope they don't change the name again. It was challenging explaining to customers that it's no longer NetScaler but ADC, and now it's not just ADC but also the rebranding from NetScaler. When I first started working with NetScaler, it seemed a bit complex. However, with experience, I've come to appreciate its user-friendly nature, especially when you know your way around it.

I have been working with it for three years now.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

It offers exceptional scalability. I would rate it ten out of ten.

I've only reached out to tech support once, and they swiftly resolved my issue. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup eight out of ten.

For the specific use case that my customers primarily engage with, I would give the pricing a rating of seven out of ten. However, if you're exploring the full range of NetScaler's capabilities, my rating would drop to four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We provide the solution to customers on their premises. We use Citrix to provide their network infrastructure for their business solutions. We have an automated scenario implemented where we can deploy architectures with an automation script.

We have good customer support. And since we've been working on the solution for the last five years, it's intuitive to us, and we can provide new solutions, applications, and implementations.

One of the most glitchy things in NetScaler comes whenever they upgrade something. Their upgrades are not very backward compatible, and sometimes they mess up, and we'd have to speak to someone. Also, Citrix is limiting their support for the load balancer to their legacy customers only. They are not providing the services to new customers or clients. Citrix is changing its business model.

We also need more things on a DNS-based system. For some of the new DNS, the features that can be included would be good.

Moreover, the solution should be more user-friendly. If one implements it once, they will get all the dos and don'ts. But first-time users would not know. And the documentation has limits and gaps. First-time users need to go to the support team and get their expertise to get it done.

We have a setup that's been running for the past six years.

I rate the solution's stability a six-and-a-half out of ten. Sometimes, we face issues with upgrading time.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

Since we use quite a lot of electricity, we don't just scale up. We also scale down when we don't need it for cost-effectiveness. With scalability, we are not facing any issues, and the solution works quite well.

We have more than 2,500 individual customers daily. That is the smallest customer base we have on this solution.

I rate the initial setup a six-point five or seven out of ten because it was difficult. Because we have lots of experience already on this product, we understand how to work with it. But people purchasing it and trying to implement it for the first time would need support from the support team. If first-time users mandatorily need support, it's not user-friendly.

Because we have automatic implementations enabled, the solution takes half a day to deploy. But it will take longer for new users. If I were doing a POC, I would probably take three to four business days to deploy the solution.

The deployment process is all automated. We prepare our environment using Ansible scripts.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten since it is expensive. The pricing can be a problem for smaller businesses.

There is a separate cost grade for the kind of support you get.

I suggest everyone does their own POC because everyone has their requirements. They should do their research and see what fits better for them.

I rate Citrix Web App and API Protection a seven-and-a-half out of ten.