NetScaler Reviews

We use it for our clients' the desktops for their virtual machines.

I like the ease of use. It's easy to manage. I also like it's ease of use with virtualization technologies with applications.

Integration with other third party providers and third party applications could be better because it can be a bit complex at present.

Screen resolution needs improvement as well.

I've been using it for two years.

It is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

Technical support has been helpful.

Citrix ADC is quite easy to set up, and the deployment took us about four to five days. However, if all factors are available it should take a couple of hours.

I would suggest that you use Citrix ADC, but you may need to watch out a bit for possible latency issues when you use some of their virtualization solutions. However, it's still good, compared to some other products.

I would rate Citrix ADC at seven on a scale from one to ten.

Private Cloud

We used this mostly for disaster recovery plan (DRP), for global service load balancing, and Citrix Access Gateway. 

What I found most valuable from Citrix ADC were the Content Switching and Integrated Caching features which were the things we commonly installed for our customers.

The only thing customers told me that could be improved is that they would like to be able to purchase and receive the products in one box, rather than two boxes. This is something related to marketing, though.

We were partners with Citrix for 15 years. We used it for 15 years.

I also found this solution to be stable.

I found it to be scalable.

Our customers' feedback was that support wasn't the best. Cases were often on queue and there were delays in solving their issues, leading to customers getting angry. Support could be improved.

I was able to try F5 and Radware. The price for Citrix ADC here in Mexico was good when you compare it with F5 and Radware.

The setup was easy. For the first version of this solution, it was not very user-friendly, but in the last edition we used, the setup was very user-friendly.

We implemented it for our customers through our in-house team of 3 consultants. I think 3 people is sufficient for implementing this solution to our customers.

I was able to evaluate F5 and Radware.

My rating for this solution is ten out of ten. I think it is the best product ever.

My recommendation is for customers here in Mexico to try it. I feel it is the best solution in the market, at least here in Mexico. My message to customers here is to try it and they'll never be disappointed with this magic box.

On-premises

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. 

I like the solution's simplicity compared to Citrix's on-prem solutions. Citrix is not an easy technology, but they tend to make things very simple now.

The solution's pricing is a big concern and should be improved.

I prefer not to contact the solution's technical support. They will not resolve the problem, and we will have to do it ourselves.

Neutral

I rate Citrix Web App and API Protection a six out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight or nine out of ten.

I have been working with Citrix for more than eight years. I recently discovered Parallels RAS, which is better than Citrix in terms of cost and simplicity. Unlike Citrix, Parallels RAS is an all-in-one solution, and it's easy to deploy.

Overall, I rate Citrix Web App and API Protection a seven out of ten.

We solely use this solution for Citrix remote access.

This has allowed us to secure Citrix remote access from the internet, as it is currently the only solution available that enables this.

We appreciate that this solution facilitates our access to Citrix internet.

We would like to see some fairly large scale improvement in the configuration process for this solution.

This solution carries a high price point, which we would like to see some reduction in.

We have been using this solution for 10 years now.

We have found this to be a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution in our experience.

The setup for this solution is fairly complex.

We would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We mostly use VPN and enroll the NetScaler.

The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN.

The SLB could be better, and they should improve it. We want to see REST proxy and WAF capabilities in the next release.

We have been using this solution for three and a half years. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable product, and I rate the stability an eight out of ten. In addition, we have not faced any complications with the hardware.

I rate the scalability an eight out of ten, and we have no issues. We have 3000 people using Citrix NetScaler, and our business people use it daily.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten. We have some support delays and do not get solutions on time, which can be frustrating. In addition, their technical support does not understand our issues.

Neutral

The initial setup is a bit complicated. We used a third-party consultant for the setup. I rate the setup an eight out of ten.

The licensing is more expensive than others, and I rate it a seven out of ten.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the content switching. 

ADC from Citrix has added functionalities from other products and the usability is very difficult for someone who is used to a simpler user interface, it's a little bit of a mess to use. 

In terms of the GUI's functionalities, it responds to our needs. I don't see a need for improvement for that. 

I have been using this solution for ten years. 

We have more users than before so we had to migrate from a VPX to an NPX to improve the bandwidth. We are a medium-sized company with around 5,000 users. Most of them work through ADC appliances. It responds to our needs. 

I have contacted their technical support. They're good. We have a meeting with them once a month. Their support is good. 

My recommendation would depend on the company's needs. In my former job, we used to have f5 for load balancing and we used to have NetScaler for ICA reverse proxy for access gateway and we used the two of them in conjunction. In my current job, we have Fortinet for firewalling and we have ADC for reverse proxy for access gateway. My opinion is that you have to choose the best solution for every functionality you need. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the user interface. 

On-premises

We are using NetScaler VPX as a gateway for our virtual applications and desktops.

The most valuable feature is the securing of virtual apps and desktops.

This solution increases the backend network service performance, which is one of the things that we like the most.

Bugs in the software have had an impact on us. Better quality control or quality assurance would be an improvement.

Some of our customers have questioned the security of this solution lately, wondering whether it is safe or not, so enhancements in this respect would be good.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler VPX for seven or eight years.

Citrix NetScaler VPX is a very stable solution and it is used on a daily basis. Its use is quite crucial.

This is a scalable solution and it is easy to expand.

We have a variety of clients that range in size from small businesses to enterprise-level customers. Most of our clients are of medium size.

The technical support for this solution is pretty good.

Prior to this solution, we used F5 BIG-IP and the Azure Load Balancer.

The initial setup is simple. It takes 30 or 40 minutes to deploy.

I am a consultant and the person responsible for deploying this solution. Usually, one or two engineers are used during deployment.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the scope of the project. I would say that two to three people are the average.

The licensing costs for this solution vary depending on which model is being used. It comes in many different sizes and models. I think that the cost of support, or maintenance, might be in addition to the standard feeds.

Our clients do evaluate other options and vendors such as F5, Cisco, Palo Alto, and Microsoft Azure before deciding on which solution to implement. People generally choose Citrix NetScaler because of the performance that it offers. Also, if they have other products by Citrix then it is generally a good idea to stay with the same vendor because of compatibility.

This is definitely a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises