NetScaler Reviews

We are a solution provider and when we need to implement application delivery control then Citrix ADC is one of the products that we suggest to our clients.

Manageability and visibility are good.

The interface needs to be improved because the competition is coming up with ones that are more eye-catching, straightforward, and sophisticated.

I have been working with Citrix for three years.

We are very happy with its stability.

We have no issues with scalability.

Currently, our customers for Citrix ADC are large-sized organizations.

I would rate the technical support a seven out of ten. They are okay. When they are investigating a problem then they need a lot of information, and there is a lot of back and forth.

The situation is the same with most of the big vendors.

We also deal with Fortinet FortiADC, and one of our clients recently had to switch to Fortinet because of a management decision. Importantly, however, they were still happy with Citrix.

The complexity of the initial setup and length of time for deployment depends on the customer that we're dealing with. If it's a ministry or government then it's going to take a long time. These deployments might take a month to complete. If it's a small or medium-sized customer then it might be between one and three days, and you're finished.

This product is more expensive than some of the competitors.

In the future, we are hoping to provide more cloud-based solutions. However, at this time, there is not enough maturity, and as such, corporations and government offices want on-premises solutions.

Citrix ADC is a product that I can recommend, without any doubt or hesitation.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

On-premises

We primarily use the solution for load balancing and SSL offloading. It's mostly for load balancing, however, occasionally we use it for the SSL offloading and content switching.

The load balancing on the solution is excellent.

The fact that you can do content switching is very useful.

The pricing is pretty good.

The solution is easy to work with and manage.

It's cloud-ready and we can manage it both on-premises and on the cloud if we need to.

The multi-tenancy isn't ideal.

The solution should be able to scale more effectively than it does.

Technical support could be improved upon.

Recently, we tried to configure AAA authentification and we ran into some issues using the web-based GUI. When you are on the console it works, however, when you're on the web-based version when you log in with your AAA credentials, it's very very slow. That is something that we're beginning to see and something they need to address.

We've been using the solution for over six years at this point.

The stability is okay. We haven't dealt with any bugs at all.

A big requirement for us is to be able to scale for multi-tenancy, and this solution doesn't really provide for that. We're looking into another model that might be able to help us handle this.

The technical support is okay. However, they could still improve their services.

I've worked with F5 and found it hard to work with and manage, in comparison to Citrix.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't say that it was tedious due to the fact that the vendor who we got to assist us already had experience in deployment. They made it pretty easy. After the POC it was simple to deploy into the production environment.

We have less than 20 engineers that are working with and maintaining the product.

Our vendor helped us deploy the solution. They made the process pretty efficient and we were satisfied with eh results.

The solution offers quite good value for money. For the amount you pay, you get a fairly robust product.

We're just customers.

I would recommend this solution to other organizations as it's quite easy to use. There's so much that you can do, compared to F5, for example. With F5, you have to do a lot of tweaking to be able to achieve certain things. 

With Citrix, due to the infrastructure, we run very very easily. We run on ECA infrastructure and it's a great thing. It's very very straightforward. With F5, it's not as good. 

That said, it has some flaws that need to be corrected.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it at an 8.

On-premises

We use it for load balancing.

The load balancing feature and the fact that you can do context switching in the WAF are the most valuable. We majorly use it for load balancing, but we also use it for context switching in the WAF. It is also robust and very easy to work with and manage.

They can improve the scalability and the multi-tenancy feature. 

We recently tried to configure an authentication, and we ran into some issues while using the web-based GUI. It was very slow when you log in with your credentials in the web-based GUI. Each time we clicked on the menu, it tried to do the authentication. It works properly in the console. 

I have been working with Citrix ADC for six years.

Its scalability is not good enough. We can't scale the model that we have to the one that is used for multi-tenancy. We need mobile multi-tenancy. Scalability is a big requirement for us. That's why we are looking at a different model.

Their technical support has been okay. It is fine, but it can be improved.

I have used an F5 solution. In F5, you have to do a lot of coding and scripting to be able to achieve certain things. Citrix is very straightforward because of the infrastructure that we run. It is very easy to spin up services. F5 is not straightforward.

I wouldn't say that it was tedious. It was pretty much straightforward for us.

We had a vendor who was experienced in deploying this solution. After the POC, it was easy for us to deploy this solution. We have less than 20 engineers to maintain this solution.

We get value for money. Its price is fair. I don't think it is overpriced. 

I would recommend this solution. It is cloud-ready. It can be deployed on the cloud as well as on-premises. 

I would rate Citrix ADC an eight out of ten. There are some flaws that need to be corrected.

On-premises

We are using Citrix ADC as a VPN appliance, and use it as a load balancer for a few different services.

We have a custom application that we use, and we were able to port it over from a legacy system into the ADC.

I find all of it to be valuable, because of the flexibility that is built into this product.

If we need an on-premises load balancer, it's easy enough to spin those up here an there and the VPN seems to be pretty solid as well.

The licensing model that Citrix employs need to be improved. There are specific features that we like but are not available at our licensing level.

There are certain features that are very useful and Citrix makes you pay a bit more for them. I think that they should be included as default features.

In the next release, I would like to have the ability to inspect the SSL payload. It should be included by default.

I have been using Citrix ADC for almost a year.

It's a stable product and I haven't found any issues with it. It's been working well for us this entire time.

Scalability is not really applicable in our case. We have moved towards the cloud.

I don't believe that we plan to scale on-premises any further.

We have approximately 500 users in the company who are using this solution.

Technical support is good. We have reached out a couple of times and they were able to assist us quickly, even on the weekend.

I would rate technical support a nine out of ten.

It depends on who you get, there are some who want to redirect you to professional services. Once you get them on board, their service is good.

Previously, we used Juniper VPN. The hardware was older.

The initial setup was fairly complex. There is a bit of a learning curve.

We worked with professional services during our deployment.

It's an expensive product but it works well.

My advice to anyone who is looking at implementing Citrix ADC is if they need flexibility, it's a stable product. It's one of the better appliances that I have used, even in a virtual environment, it's working great. I can recommend it.

I would rate Citrix ADC a nine out of ten.

On-premises

We use this solution for screening access, so certain people have access to certain applications. It's a good solution to deliver applications to users who are located in geographically distinct locations. The product means you can have control and still deliver the applications. We have a partnership with Citrix and I'm technology vice president. 

I like that the solution can be made available on any device and can be accessed on a wide area network - it allows for better performance for technology applications.

The process itself could be improved by making it more flexible because it has become really complicated to deploy. Implementing the application delivery mechanism model system has become more difficult over time and more complicated to handle.

I would like to see a simplification of initials. 

I've been using this solution for a very long time, since it was first established. 

It's a stable solution. 

It's a scalable solution. 

Technical support is average, sometimes response times are a little slow.

Deployment takes quite a lot of planning and the cost of implementation is based on the number of users. You need to have clarity about the architecture to get an idea of how long deployment will take.  

If a company wants to have a secure environment and they want the performance then this is a good solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

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 have one project for our telecom and another for our port to manage traffic.

In our country, it is not possible to implement in the cloud.

• Loadbalancing
• It has disaster recovery functionalities.

We are working the Oracle to publish all the web applications on the platform in the next phase of the application. This will be good for us because there are additional security features added into the platform from the website.

The reporting is not so good. They don't have an application to connect the logs.

The stability is good. If there is a problem, the load will be shifted to other sites automatically, which has been a good experience for us.

It is working now at two sites.

The technical support is fine. I would rate the technical support as a five (out of five). They gave us extra support during the deployment phase.

We used the documentation to deploy it. 

When we deploy the product, we also buy the Professional Services from Citrix. Another engineer and I also worked on these products.

We have all the features and functions of Citrix because we have a premium license.

For partners, NetScaler is not as expensive price-wise versus F5. The biggest difference between NetScaler and F5 is the support. F5 has better support, and it is important to have good support. I have recommended to NetScaler that they improve their support.

NetScaler is a good product for partners.

I would rate NetScaler as an eight (out of 10).

On-premises

Our primary use cases are for the different local LANs and for exchange, a local LAN SharePoint, a local LAN for web applications and for different RDP, remote desktop publishing solutions, a local LAN for intranet, web applications, internal web applications, etc. and for all command switching and full VPN gateway for Citrix and for apps and desktops. We deal with enterprise companies, so around 5,000 users. I'm the Senior Principal IT Consultant in our organization. 

Citrix is a complete solution for those looking for an all-in-one. It's all there, the NetScaler gateway, remote access, internet access, optimization, load balancing, you have Citrix desktop publishing and VDAs. You can create a complete solution with Citrix. That's a good thing. If you have to troubleshoot something there's no problem like you would have if you were working between different solutions. If you're dealing with different manufacturers, there's always a problem with troubleshooting - nobody wants to take responsibility.

The solution has too many bugs in the software and it's always difficult when you need to update. If you have bugs in one firmware and you fix them and then update, sometimes it doesn't work in the correct way. Even when there are new feature releases, the problems are not always solved. Instability is an issue. The product also offers a lot of features that are not necessary, you don't need them. 

Bug fixing is a problem in this solution and they should consider focusing on that in any future release. 

I've been using this solution for over 10 years. 

The solution is somewhat lacking in stability. 

Scalability of the solution is fine. 

Technical support could be better. Response is good but when I open a ticket at Citrix because I have a problem, it's not because I want to check a simple configuration task on a support line, I want a solution.

I worked for a long time with F5. I've only worked with Microsoft and Cisco solutions. We're currently checking other options for a new customer. 

Initial setup is straightforward, deployment time really depends on the environment of the customer. 

I think the price is okay. 

If anyone wants to implement this solution, it's important to be clear about your use case in order to grow with the product. Functionality always depends on the underlying networking. If there is trouble in the underlying networking, then you'll always have problems with NetScaler.

I would rate this product a three out of 10. 

Private Cloud