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. 

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.

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.

My clients use it for load balancing. 

The tool needs to add a feature where we can access the network policy access manager. 

We are a distributor of Citrix NetScaler for nine years. 

You need to just upload the installation script. The deployment time ranges from minutes to days. 

I would rate the tool a nine out of ten. 

I use the solution for its access gateway and endpoint management features to balance services.

The solution's most valuable features are low latency, reverse proxy, content switching, and access gateway.

We face challenges with the solution's firmware upgrades frequently. They should improve this particular area. 

I have been using the solution for nine years.

I rate the solution's stability as an eight. 

It is a very scalable solution. 

The solution's technical support team is good.

The solution's initial setup was straightforward. The deployment takes only a few hours. I rate the process a ten out of ten.

It is an enterprise solution. Thus, its costs are reasonable.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a ten. 

With Citrix ADM, one can manage NetScaler and ADC. One can also gather data on remote users, especially information on their bandwidth and the resources they use.

Feature, wise, one of the things that I use is the SSL dashboard to make sure my certificates are up-to-date on my NetScalers. So, it's very handy.

Some features of Citrix ADM are available on the cloud, which could really be helpful if they were available on an on-premise version. At the moment, I can't explain it in detail since I don't utilize the Microapps or StyleBooks in the solution, even though both are available in the cloud version. However, they are not available in the on-premise version. So, I use the on-premise version.

I have experience with Citrix ADM for twenty years. I am a reseller and a partner of Citrix.

It's a virtual appliance, and once it's up and running, it just runs. So, it is a stable product.

Just one solution can handle thousands of users and hundreds of ADCs. So, it is a very convenient tool to use.

Currently, the support team is experiencing a shortage of staff, making it difficult for users to reach someone knowledgeable.

The solution's initial setup was very easy. If ten means super easy, I rate it only an eight on a rating bar.

I would recommend those planning to use the solution, especially if they use or have ADCs or NetScalers in their environment. There are a lot of people who don't use the solution when they should.

There's still a lot of scope for growth and many features that can be added to the solution. Also, I'm unfamiliar with some of the features, so I can't speak on all of them now. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.