NetScaler Reviews

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. 

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 use it for web applications, firewalling, EDOS protection, load balancing, and content switching. There are quite a lot of use cases that we use it for. It just depends on what the client requires. It's a multi-purpose software.

It's a well-rounded, well-featured product that is quite flexible in terms of covering quite a lot of use cases depending on the client's environment.

It's quite a competitive solution if you compare it to others. It's one of the market leaders in terms of functionality and features.

It's a stable product.

The solution can scale.  

Technical support could be improved. 

I've used the solution for seven years or so. 

It's a stable product. I'd rate its reliability eight out of ten. There are few bugs, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is fine. I'd rate its ability to scale ten out of ten. 

We aren't fully satisfied with technical support at this time. We'd like them to have a faster response time. Sometimes those responding to requests aren't technical enough, and the case needs to be passed through to someone else. 

Neutral

We did not previously use a different solution. 

How long the solution takes to deploy depends on what features are deployed. The deployment of the VPN and general balancing stuff doesn't take too much time. However, if you are looking at web applications and/or firewalling, it can get a bit more complex. The implementation will take longer. 

I'd rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. There are some complex configurations, however, it isn't something that we generally can't handle ourselves. 

The initial setup is usually done by our team. We would usually reach out to the vendor for support in the case of a bug or something like that.

I'm not involved in licensing aspects of the solution and cannot speak to the exact cost of the product. 

There is only a licensing fee. There aren't any extra costs attached.

We did not previously evaluate other options. We use Citrix a lot. It's our bread and butter. 

We're Citrix partners. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

We have multiple implementations of the product, including on the cloud and on-premises. When we use the cloud version, we use Azure and AWS. 

I'd rate the product nine out of ten. 

Corporations we work for use Citrix Web App and API Protection for security compliance.

The advantage of Citrix Web App and API Protection is just its graphic user interface for beginners. The solution is nothing special, but we have to use it for the corporation. Another advantage of Citrix Web App and API Protection is that we have our copy to test things and get the know-how of it.

An area for improvement in Citrix Web App and API Protection is for it to give real-time notifications and alerts. It would be practical if the solution warns you if there's an attack or if the load or traffic volume increases or decreases.

An additional feature I'd like to see in Citrix Web App and API Protection is a prediction or artificial intelligence on what is happening, for example, attacks.

I've been using Citrix Web App and API Protection for five or six years because of a corporate decision, but for me, the solution is of no use.

Citrix Web App and API Protection is a stable solution, but it doesn't have much use. We had a cluster setup in the past, and the solution lost connectivity, but it's been a year since the latest update, and that issue has been resolved.

Citrix Web App and API Protection is a scalable solution.

I didn't work with other solutions before working with Citrix Web App and API Protection, but my company is currently looking at F5, Nginx, and a cloud solution such as Cloudflare.

The initial setup for Citrix Web App and API Protection was quite easy. We just installed it, configured the interfaces, and it worked. It only took one day until full production.

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.

My company is working with Citrix Web App and API Protection, but the team doesn't like the solution.

The team used version 11 of Citrix Web App and API Protection. Version 12 of the solution stopped working on the exchange server because of authentication issues. It serves as a proxy, but you can do it with Apache or Nginx if you want. There's nothing special with the solution in terms of protection and no notification if there's an issue, so Citrix Web App and API Protection does not have much use.

About ten people use Citrix Web App and API Protection in my company.

My advice to people who want to implement the solution is "Better not start".

My rating for Citrix Web App and API Protection, if you have the solution, would be in the middle. There's no practical use for it for technical system administrators. I'm rating it six out of ten.

I don't know the exact relationship with Citrix, but it seems my company has the license for partners in terms of usage.

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 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.

There's a very powerful content switching capability, load balancing capability, and SSL offloading, layer-to-firewall capabilities, routine capabilities, policies, and rewrite policy capabilities. So there are a lot of capabilities in this solution.

The most valuable feature is SSL offloading.

The solution can improve their support and send tickets directly to a Citrix ADC engineer in order to avoid having to escalate each support call.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable.

I think that the solution needs to be handled by a team of Citrix ADC engineers, not just a normal support desk. Every single time you log a support call, it has to be escalated anyway, so why not just give us direct access to the Citrix ADC engineers?

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward with some training. You can get the solution up and running out of the box, but training does help. Deployment can be completed in three days if you have all the bits and pieces in place. We use three technical engineers for deployment.

The deployment was completed in-house.

You can do CapEx and then a yearly monthly fee, or you can do a subscription model, whether that's one month, month-to-month, or three-year subscription model. I give the solution an eight out of ten for pricing.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We currently have 40 - 45 people using the solution.

I recommend using an integrator that knows what they're doing. You need to validate the integrator's capabilities.

I think it's a really, really solid, well-run, nice solution.

Compared to other solutions, Citrix ADC is much more robust in terms of the native integration to cloud platforms. It is far more robust from an operational point of view as well.

Their support is also pretty good.

Native integration needs to be improved. You cannot build ISE codes natively. For DevOps, integration would be very helpful because it would be a lot simpler from an operational standpoint.

The initial configuration needs to be rearchitected because of the limitations that are present with the cloud. It would be good if these limitations could be removed.

Improving the scalability would be really good as well.

I've worked with it for a few years.

It's primarily a cloud solution.

It is a stable solution.

The on-demand scalability options are not good.

The technical support from Citrix is good.

The initial setup is straightforward if your enterprise requirements are very simple. However, this is usually not the case, and then, the configurations are not straightforward.

It takes approximately two days to set it up. You would need a team of six, including engineers and senior tech leads.

There isn't much of a difference between the cost of Citrix and that of other similar solutions.

In terms of capability, Citrix ADC is much better than F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM).

Stability-wise, it's also much better than F5, but feature-wise, it's exactly the same. 

Technical support-wise, Citrix ADC is far better than F5.

My recommendation would strictly be to look forward to cloud native because of the operationality, scalability, and native integration in terms of the CI/CD pipeline or DevOps pipeline. It's quite easy if you do that.

Then, if you consider using third-party tools like Citrix ADC, know that there are problems with native integration.

In terms of capability, I would rate Citrix ADC at seven on a scale from one to ten.