NetScaler Reviews

We have published our applications via Citrix and then given access to the business users to access those specific applications via Citrix. We have many applications where multiple users need access - whether it's an EVS or a CRM, all these have been published to Citrix. We also use the solution for the ADC. ADC is a front end, wherein I get queries, and we'll get all the requests from internal and external users as well.

The solution is easy to use. It's very easy to configure. The solution is not very difficult.

Performance-wise it's okay. The solution is stable. 

The solution is easy to set up and the deployment process is quite fast.

The solution could be more secure. 

I've used the solution for four or maybe five years.

The solution is quite stable and the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The stability is good.

We have about 3,000 users on this solution. The product can scale. 

We are in constant touch with Citrix support. We get a good resolution from them. I'd say that we are quite satisfied with the level of support they provide. 

I also worked with F5. We used it for a couple of years.

The setup process is not overly complex or difficult. The installation should not take more than three to five hours so long as you have the right information on hand. 

Since the solution is straightforward and stable, we only need three or four engineers to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We handled the installation ourselves. We did not need outside help from consultants or integrators. We're capable of handling everything in-house.

There is a licensing fee, and we pay it once a year.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been very happy with its capabilities.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

We have Citrix StoreFront to access everything from a remote desk. We use it with Office 365 so that we can access Teams. 

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. 

It would be ideal if there were more integration capabilities. That's something that could improve. 

Technical support could be improved. 

The solution could offer a higher level of security.

I've been using the solution for about five or six years. It's been a while. 

The solution has been very stable. I don't recall dealing with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand usage, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We currently have 400 users on the solution right now. 

I've contacted technical support in the past. Their level of service is inconsistent. Sometimes it's good and other times not as much. It depends. 

The installation was handled by a specific department and not by myself. I work in an area of the government and don't contact that department directly. Therefore, I can't speak to the overall experience of the initial setup. I can't say if it is difficult or straightforward. 

I don't have any details in relation to the pricing. It's not an aspect of the solution that I take care of. 

I'm a customer and an end-user. I don't have any special relationship with Citrix. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities overall.

I would recommend the solution to other users, departments, and companies. 

It is mainly used for virtual desktop delivery for remote access. We are also using it for load balancing and SSL VPN.

The load balancing and VPN features are most valuable. AAA authentication is also valuable. 

They have specific integration with the product line for application virtualization and desktop virtualization.

Its GUI should be improved. Its CLI is powerful, but GUI needs more features.

I have been using this solution for almost eight years.

It is stable.

They have the software bundle licenses. If you want to add more users, capacity, or throughput on the bandwidth, you can add licenses, and it'll get upgraded.

They also have scalability options with virtualization, and you can use those options as well. Normally, we decide on a particular model depending on the number of users and the use case.

They have different models. An entry-level model supports up to 5,000 users. A mid-range model can support up to 10,000 users, and a high-end model can support up to 40,000 users in the box in HA configuration.

I've contacted them many times. In case of a problem or error, you can raise a support ticket online. Normally, we upload the log. After they analyze the log, they are able to identify the root cause and provide support. In case of a severe issue, they also do a remote session to analyze the issue. They are very helpful.

It is pretty easy and straightforward. A new setup takes maybe a couple of hours.

I would recommend it depending on the use case. If you have a use case for an application controller for load balancing, web application firewall, or virtual infrastructure, you can straight away go for this solution.

I would rate Citrix ADC a nine out of 10.

I use Citrix NetScaler as a gateway to provide secure access to virtualized desktops and applications.

Citrix NetScaler offers robust security features, including SmartAccess and customizable policies, making it a reliable choice for safeguarding user data. The seamless integration with Citrix tools enhances both performance and security, creating a powerful combination for optimal IT environments.

There is room for improvement regarding the pricing policy for Citrix offices. In the past, the gateway was cost-effective, but there has been a shift, and the current pricing seems too high.

I have been working with Citrix NetScaler for many years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as an eight out of ten.

Tech support for NetScaler can be frustrating. When opening a case, I often spend much time with first-level support, who sometimes lack programming knowledge. The process involves repeating details when the case is escalated to an engineer which causes delays. Overall, I would rate the support as a three out of ten.

Neutral

Before using Citrix NetScaler, I had experience with similar products. I recall working with Citrix Gateway for server access, but it involved a server running an application on a Windows server. I have also dabbled a bit with other vendors like F5 for feature integration. However, integrating with Citrix has been challenging as they are not very open to external integrations.

The solution is quite expensive. Regular security audits reveal frequent vulnerabilities, requiring monthly patches.

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

We use the product for load balancing and as a reverse proxy solution.

The tool's pricing is a pain point since we have many cheaper alternatives. 

I have been working with the solution for five years. 

I rate Citrix ADM's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. 

Citrix ADM has a good tech support. 

Neutral

I rate the solution's deployment an eight out of ten, and was straightforward. It was completed in three weeks. 

Our customers are mostly medium enterprises. 

I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I rate Citrix ADM a seven 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. 

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.

We used it mainly for GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). It was the intelligent DNS service.

I found that the GUI was very easy to to navigate. If you were looking for something, it was fairly easy to find. There's a lot of third-party documentation and information available online as well.

Citrix should offer a demo or free-trial version of NetScaler. Several other vendors do, but Citrix does not.

Pricing should also be more readily available.

We deployed Citrix NetScaler in 2018, and I've worked with it for four years.

In the four years I was working on it, we didn't have a single incident. There were no crashes or abnormal behavior. We found it to be very stable.

We didn't have any issues with scalability.

I've contacted technical support once, and their response was timely. There were no issues.

I found the initial setup to be very easy.

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.

I am really happy with Citrix NetScaler in terms of the stability and user-friendliness of the user interface. It's easy to set up as well, and I'd rate it at nine out of ten.