Appgate SDP vs Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) comparison

"The simplicity of the SDP platform is a standout feature; instead of navigating through intricate details, users can seamlessly connect to the company's network or switch to the internet with minimal effort."

"It is pretty stable."

"It is a scalable solution...The support answers your questions very fast."

"One of the most important features is stopping lateral movement across our network."

"The flexibility of the tool is valuable. It is very robust. It has a very robust configuration capability."

"The interface is really friendly. It's simple to understand."

"The tool helps me to connect with some apps of our company and resolve the tickets."

"The ROI for us has been that when we had Hurricane Harvey last year, Xendesktop came in very handy for us. Even though people had electricity in Texas, many networks were down. Our offices could still get into our network and do work that was needed. It is an excellent virtual office that works anywhere, anytime and anyplace. It is worth our investment."

"First of all, the manageability of the applications for publishing is valuable. Second, it is about being able to run the applications on all main platforms. Third, its licensing is valuable. You can either switch to the cloud and keep on-prem. You can work with this hybrid scenario."

"XenDesktop has helped our users to work remotely with a better user experience."

"It has improved delivering applications to remote locations with its lower bandwidth utilization."

"Centralization and security are the most valuable features of Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops."

"The most valuable feature has to be the non-persistent desktop. If one of my users messes something up and blows away their desktop, it goes back to what it was originally, before they had an issue."

"In terms of scalability, Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops have a lot of technologies baked in there that allow an organization to scale up or down, as required. Further, leveraging Azure for scalability has added value to our organization. For example, pre-COVID-19, we had very few resources in Azure. We had some Virtual Desktops and no application servers. When COVID-19 came along, we knew people were going to be home. We knew that we had to ramp up very quickly. We fully leveraged MCS to be able to scale. Being able to take a single image and build 400,000 Virtual Desktops, all within minutes, was second to none in terms of any other technology out there that we could have used. The scalability to be able to do that in Azure, where we really don't have to worry about storage and compute power because Microsoft does that for us, was fantastic. It was almost like giving our environments steroids. It has been amazing in terms of that scalability. Now, as people start coming back to the office, we can just as quickly scale down so the compute and resource costs in Azure aren't so great anymore."

"It would be better to connect to an application portal from any device. Documentation and support could be better."

"On the cloud, when you make some changes, it may be difficult."

"The user interface should be improved as it is not very easy to work with the updates."

"One thing that kind of sticks out to me is the ability to do a proper non-split tunnel. VPN tunnel-wise, it is not really a true unsplit tunnel, but I think that's just because of the way it's designed. A split VPN basically allows your system to talk to other systems without being forced down the tunnel. A VPN running in a non-split tunnel mode forces all the traffic down the tunnel to wherever you're VPNing to. It forces the traffic down so that the traffic is subject to the firewall and rules that you have in your corporate environment and such. It helps to prevent remote malicious folks that may be talking directly to that box from piggybacking into the corporate environment through it. They do it partially, but it would be nice to see more of an enterprise-level solution there."

"One limitation is that it's harder to provide access to multiple applications in the company with Appgate, but that's probably because of poor management."

"They could provide a single-box solution to manage tools for 4000 users. Additionally, they could add extra features to enhance remote micro connection."

"When I needed support for a couple of things, three people intervened. Each time, three people gave me a different answer. In the end, they did not manage to give the right answer. At a certain point, they stopped replying."

"For us, pricing is the most important feature to improve."

"The product’s customization feature needs improvement."

"There is room for improvement on the hypervisor side, providing better integration between the hypervisor and the product line. I suspect that they haven't put the work into that because of the move to the cloud. They want everything to be cloud-hosted. But for folks like us, who will always be a hybrid model, that's of some concern."

"The initial setup is complex."

"The cost of Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is high and has room for improvement."

"My only issue with Citrix is that they frequently rebrand their products. I'm using the app and everything is fine but after a couple of years, it's entirely different. There were an enormous number of Citrix tools readily available. My immediate concern was selecting the correct ones."

"Compared with the Outlook mobile app, the Citrix mobile app shows some lag in authentication."

"It is a pretty expensive tool. It is maybe about $20,000 per year for a hundred users or so."

"We pay $100 per user per month. One license for the site is around $17."

"The pricing is according to the market price. It is not a very cheap solution. They have some very aggressive promotions to sell the product in the market."

"If you look at cost, then you must look at the number of users that you are covering. If you are only using it for some users, then it is very expensive. However, if you have a massive amount of users, then it begins to be interesting to use Citrix. Because once you are managing thousands of servers with one guy, your maintenance costs decrease per user."

"The Citrix licensing scheme is really straightforward and simple. It doesn't have hidden costs. You get what you pay for. It is easy to understand what is on the product, so it's simple to get a clear idea of how much it costs. Licensing is not an issue."

"The licensing is $125 USD per user."

"It is an expensive solution. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."

"Implementing Citrix DaaS with thin clients, rather than physical laptops, has resulted in savings of 27% to 29%. Additionally, moving 1,000 users from physical laptops to thin clients and VDI solutions can save around 40,000 kilograms of carbon emissions, benefiting both the environment and the company's economy, provided thin clients are used."

"The cost of the Citrix software reflects what I would expect a product of that nature, in that market, to be. Understanding the licensing is quite a bit more complicated, because one of the things about Citrix is that you can buy licensing at different levels... Yet I still like the idea because it means that if all you need is a basic load balancing solution, then you don't need to buy an advanced or premium license."

"I think it is a little high priced."

"It is a bit costly, but enterprise class features come with a cost."