NetScaler Reviews

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.

The primary use case of this solution is to serve as gateway.

The features I find most valuable are the gateway feature and the SQL load-balancing that you can do as well.

I think the documentation should be improved - there should be more documentation. In the next release, I would like to see more analytics, better dashboards, and some management monitoring tools.

Our client has been using this solution for many years now.

It is a very stable program.

I believe this solution is very scalable.

I am satisfied with the technical support.

The program is easy to install and to set up.

Citrix NetScaler VPX is not the cheapest solution out there, but you get what you pay for. There are also additional costs to the standard licensing fee.

This solution gets a ten out of ten rating from me. My advice to others is that they need to be clear of what they want to actually achieve and plan before they deploy. They should make sure that it actually meets the business requirements or the use case that they are trying to fix or sell. 

I work as a senior sales engineer and business developer manager and we distribute the Citrix NetScaler AppFirewall. My job is in presales and I'm also a distributor, assisting the company partners.

Our customers are generally enterprise and public companies and our primary use of the product is for security and work balancing applications. Implementation of the product assists with all the applications and the customer's communication requirements. NetScaler can do a lot of things. We make a point of always using the latest version of the product.

I think that the work balancing applications are the most valuable feature. The licensing model that Citrix has implemented is very good. It's a pay-by-use system. 

The product could be improved by making it easier to use and easier to implement. We've had some difficult problems with that. 

An additional feature they could include more of a firewall, as you would find with Checkpoint, Fortinet or Palo Alto firewalls, which all have specific features for security. It would be good if they could include some kind of technical analysis in the next version but I don't know that is part of the Citrix strategy. 

The Citrix technical support is very good and the support from the company sales engineer is very good too. 

The initial setup can be problematic. The length of time it takes to implement really depends on the project. It normally takes around two weeks.

Our company carries out the implementation, the integration of the solution on the customer's infrastructure. In Portugal, we have a lot of enterprise and public sector implementations and a lot of different products available for mounting infrastructure. Sometimes the older implementations and on-prem implementations haven't been done properly and we need to manage this for the customer and for the implementers. You need to know very well what the customer has in order to implement the solution. 

The deployment model depends on the customer and normally it's carried out by the customer, because NetScaler in Portugal, where I am, isn't well known so we do a proof of concept first for a couple of months and then after the installation, configuration and the customer approves the product, then the department delivers it. 

There are some security problems, there's are DOS problems, different kinds of attacks. Another one is for load balancing the charge of the application because NetScaler is a very good solution to load balance the load off the application itself, from Citrix or from another solution. These are the best cases, security and load balancing.

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution as a device for connections from our mobile corporate devices to our infrastructure.

provided a secure connection to critical information

Authorization from mobile diverse for end-users to our infrastructure is a valuable feature. 

We have issues with the certificates. All authorization processes need certificates, however, every three months we needed to change certificates. This process is complicated for us because Citrix does not have a not user-friendly interface and does not off user-friendly services. This needs a lot of improvement.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

No

The solution was very easy to deploy.

The implementation was handled internally by our team.

For enterprise-level pricing, the cost isn't too high.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's pretty good, but the issues surrounding the certificates make it a difficult system for us.

In terms of advice, I would give to others, I'd say that they should read the manual before implementing the solution. Also, be sure to have someone on your team who knows Citrix very well. If you do not understand all processes when you deploy this solution, you will have issues.

We primarily use the solution for network load balancing on the edge of the network. 

The solution's most valuable feature is the content.

The solution is a bit more expensive than some of the available solutions in this region. One solution in particular that I noticed was cheaper was Kemp. 

The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature.

The solution is pretty scalable. Right now, we are only using about 40-50% of the solution's capacity. We have about 4,000 users connecting through the system. Currently, we don't plan to increase usage.

Support has been okay so far. We only ever call about two times a year, but each time we get the right help. Once we called about custom features and they supported us quite well.

We previously used Kemp Load Balancer. We still have it as part of our infrastructure. The main difference between the two is the Citrix solution is part of a physical appliance, whereas the Kemp solution is a virtual appliance.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had a very good engineer that handled the implementation.

There are costs in addition to the licensing fees, so the overall price can begin to add up.

I would recommend the solution to people who need the services and features provided by Citrix. It's a wonderful product. We've never had any downtime on our NetScaler solution. I'm pretty happy with it.

I'd rate it nine out of ten.

The primary use of this solution is application delivery. It provides access.

This solution is a gateway to the public cloud.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is very light. Once you log in, you have your applications delivered. It is not heavy over the internet or the web.

My customers have told me that the performance of this solution is good.

I would like to see multifactor authentication added to this solution to improve the security.

In terms of stability, this solution is quite good.

There are some things that I am not fully clear about when it comes to the physical appliance because I have not used it before. Currently, I am using the virtual appliance and it is scalable.

We have approximately one hundred users. We have no plans to increase usage at this time.

My consultant handles the first level of technical support for me.

I have not tried other solutions.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex. I think that it's quite simple.

The deployment takes approximately one or two days.

I have a consultant who handles the deployment of this solution for me.

We have the option of configuring the workspace or the receiver for clients to connect, or they can use the URL option and then login. I prefer using the URL that is on the web.

This is a solution that I have used for years and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide security and ensure the viability of our services.

The services are almost 100% available to everybody. The solution is invisible for our clients, so by using it, nobody knows that anything is broken because we're hiding the service behind it. It works behind the scenes, in the background, and it keeps everything running smoothly.

The web application firewall which protects our services on the internet, and then of course services like our ability to provide high availability for the services we are offering are the most valuable features. 

The user interface could be more friendly. Some wizards and other documentation for administrators, as well as some use cases, helps us to understand the solution.

The solution is very stable. On the client side, we have several thousand users. In the company itself, I would say there are more than one hundred users.

The solution is very scalable.

Technical support is good.

No, we haven't been using any other solution.

For deployment, it depends on the maturity of the client. If it's the services that are going to be supported by the solution or if it's just a new one, but the number of services is very low, then the implementation would take a week. If you are implementing a major infrastructure project that will support lots of services, then it becomes complicated, so there's no idea really how long it would take.

For our company's size and complexity, I would say it's straightforward.

Most clients, rather rarely, have a dedicated person to maintain just that solution but almost anybody from the operational team can watch it, so I don't know how many people you would need for deployment and maintenance. I haven't done a headcount.

We provide the consultancy ourselves.

This is a type of product that, in terms of security, the moment you implement it, it has an ROI because it secures the home system in the sense that no data is lost. No secrets get out.

There are some add ons to the standard licensing that you can buy for the basic version. You can extend with some add ons, or you can buy the premium version, so it depends on what your clients need. They get the packet and then they can do the add ons.

We were looking at different options according to price. We looked at the F5. The Citrix pricing was good for what it offers.

It's always a really good idea to do a POC. There are companies that are not convinced as to why should they should use something, but a POC is a good way to show why. 

The quality of the service is higher, simply, and that's what you need. So that's why we are using the solution. Also, there are lots of securities that integrate with the solution, so it's good. You can very easily find a way for almost every customer to use it.

I would rate this solution as a 9 out of 10. The performance is very good. The price is also good. You get performance, and lots of features which are very flexible which give the opportunity to provide really advanced support and the quality of the services we are serving from the platform is high.

Our primary use case is the hosting and delivering of web applications.

The product has helped us a lot with load balancing because we had limited experience with it.

The most valuable feature is the management and application delivery for Layer 7 traffic.

At the current time, the solution is not missing any features that I would like to have implemented.

This is a stable product that we have used since 2014.

This solution is scalable, and the sizing is defined by the amount of traffic. Our first box supports up to five hundred megabits of traffic, whereas our second box supports traffic of five gigabits. We will consider making use of this solution in any project going forward.

We have a contract with the re-seller, who has good expertise. If they cannot fix the issue then they escalate it to Citrix, where the tickets are usually solved. Sometimes this takes a little longer because of the multilevel ticket priority. Ideally, it should be possible for the re-seller to assign it directly to level three.

Prior to this, we used the Cisco ACE solution until the product was discontinued.

The initial setup was a little complex. We needed to choose the right partner to assist us with setup and implementation.

We contracted our re-seller to help with installation and setup. The deployment took approximately one month.

We have a yearly licencing fee, and there are no additional costs.

We used Cisco ACE, and they were the ones who recommended that we switch to this solution. We took their advice and we are pleased with it.

Customers need to look to the future and purchase the right model for their necessities. A new license can be purchased, rather than additional boxes.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.