Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) Reviews

My company started with Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service, which is presently renamed and referred to as Citrix DaaS. The majority of my company's customers use Citrix DaaS to deploy specific kinds of virtual desktops. Citrix DaaS is also used to deploy virtual machines with GPU or with a certain graphics capacity.

In general, Citrix DaaS has the ability to be very granular in the policies part to achieve the best user experience possible, even in cases where the bandwidth is very poor.

Recently, my company has started to face some troubles with Citrix at an organizational or corporate level, meaning we have no problems with Citrix as a product. After some new company recently acquired Citrix, my company has observed that it has become quite complex for our partners to maintain apps and follow the vision of Citrix, which expects its users to use Citrix products. I have issues with Citrix as a company and not with the products.

I have experience with Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) for twenty years. My company deals with multiple versions of the product. My company has a partnership with Citrix.

For our company's customers, I feel that the product is stable. My company has planned out well enough to do some periodic checkups and update patches for our customers, but not in the time frame that falls in less than six months.

My company deals with around 12 to 15 customers Who need the product in their complex Citrix-based environment.

In our organization, we have very little installation of Citrix products for our administrative purposes, so not more than five people use Citrix DaaS in the company. If you look at the number of our customers using Citrix DaaS, I would say that there are about 2,000 users.

The solution's technical support is not so good. The solution's technical support was great in the past. Considering the past, I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Under the present circumstances, I rate the technical support a six to seven out of ten.

Neutral

Half of my company's customers deployed the product on an on-premises model, while the other half deployed it on Citrix Cloud Broker. I feel that the majority of my company's customers have deployed the product on an on-premises model. Citrix Cloud is for the brokering process only.

Speaking if the product is worth the money, I would say that I need to think twice or thrice before investing in it.

In the past, the prices of the product were great. With the acquisition of Citrix by your company, the prices have drastically increased. For my company, it has become a bit of a problem to sell products from Citrix.

We started to use Citrix DaaS in our company, and I had the opportunity to hold on to my experience related to products from Citrix even when I moved from one company to another. I used Citrix in my company, Quanture, to deploy applications from the beginning, but it is mostly used for virtual desktops. My company uses Citrix DaaS for some specific phases in the tile industry, where the work is about manufacturing or producing tiles. In the production area, the tile company I deal with needs to develop a schema and design of the tiles using virtual desktops and virtual workstations with a certain graphic potential functionality. Citrix DaaS was a solution my company could provide to our customers so that they could replace costly workstations with virtual machines.

To those who plan to use the solution, I suggest that they initially take care of the PoC area because it is only useful, and they would appreciate the product if they intend to use it.

Citrix DaaS is a powerful solution. I recommend the product to only those who involved their IT staff during the PoC process, along with some end users, since if you don't involve the right people in the initial phases, there could be future problems with the product.

I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I rate the company named Citrix a six or seven out of ten.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I use it for VDI.

Citrix Workspace's standout feature is its flexibility, enabling me to access my virtual desktop seamlessly from any location, anytime.

While Citrix Workspace provides remarkable flexibility and remote access, there is room for slight improvement in performance optimization and interface refinement.

I have been using Citrix Workspace for ten years.

Citrix Workspace is highly scalable. You can easily expand the solution by installing additional servers to support the growing number of end-users. I would rate its scalability as a ten out of ten. We have approximately 2,000 end users at our company.

I used VMware Horizon View several years ago but switched to Citrix Workspace because it offered essential features, specifically support for Lexi App migrations, better meeting our requirements at the time.

The deployment time for Citrix is flexible and depends on the complexity of the solution. It can range from one day to several months, influenced by factors such as scaling, global availability, application count, and the time invested in configuring virtual machines. Deploying Citrix is complex because it involves various technical skills, including server administration and network configuration. Maintaining it is straightforward by following the vendor's instructions.

Citrix Workspace doesn't directly save time, but it is invaluable for accessibility. If hardware fails, it is a backup option for staff to access our corporate environment, reducing the impact on business operations. That is where its real value shines.

When considering Citrix Workspace or similar solutions, my advice is to assess your specific needs and preferences. There are various reputable vendors, so compare based on factors like functionality, user experience, and budget. Each organization is unique, so conduct a thorough evaluation before making a decision. Overall, I would rate Citrix Workspace as an eight out of ten.

I am publishing desktops as well as applications.

Citrix offers a range of products that can be used straight out of the box.

When it comes to Citrix, the main advantage is its protocol, which has gone through several name changes including ICA and HDX. It originally started out as Thinwire in 1988, and now they are back to using that name again. 

This protocol allows for faster transmission and beats competitors such as RDP. Citrix has tried various approaches with VMware, but nothing can beat the speed of their protocol, which works very effectively. 

Using the app layering feature can be quite difficult and cumbersome.

I have experience installing Citrix since 1997 when we published desktops using Windframe 1.7. Back then, we had to publish desktops and applications from the terminal server, which is now known as the remote desktop server, but we didn't have a desktop for over a decade. 

We had to figure out all the applications and printing for ourselves. However, everything has become much simpler now, and the issues we used to face have been largely resolved. 

Citrix has proven to be quite stable in my experience. Of course, its stability ultimately depends on the skill and expertise of the people managing it. However, I have personally overseen the implementation of Citrix in very large hospital systems, with over a hundred thousand concurrent connections, specifically for the deployment of medical applications and desktops. Overall, I find Citrix to be very reliable and stable.

I would rate the stability a nine or a ten out of ten.

Provisioning Server is a fantastic option for image management in Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops. It offers excellent performance and reliability. On the other hand, while Machine Creation Services can be scaled easily, they can significantly increase storage consumption. For instance, creating a Windows 10 image in MCS typically requires at least 80 GB of storage, in addition to any separate disks needed.

To store changes made by users in Machine Creation Services, the differencing disk must be equal in size to the base disk, leading to significant storage consumption. On the other hand, Provisioning Server uses image versioning, creating a new image version every time it's modified. As a result, virtual machines streamed from the server revert to their original state after a reboot, which is similar to their state during the first boot.

Using the provisioning server, I start by configuring a virtual machine with either a 2016 or 2019 server operating system. I install the necessary Citrix client provisioning server target device software, followed by installing the required applications. After that, I capture the entire configuration to a file share. The image is then streamed from the file share to the hypervisor, which can handle multiple machines. In some large-scale deployments, we have used a single image to provision thousands of servers.

Once the image is captured and stored on the file share, it is set to read-only mode, and any changes made to it are not accepted until it is put in read-write mode. When a virtual machine is rebooted, it returns to its previous state before the changes were made. This feature can be beneficial in situations like a virus outbreak, where a simple reboot of the virtual machines can remove any malicious code or changes.

A provisioning server offers a faster recovery time from a bad change and is generally faster than machine creation services. With the provisioning server, changes are not accepted until the read-write mode is enabled, and if a virus outbreak occurs, rebooting the machines restores them to the previous state. On the other hand, machine creation services' speed is dependent on the storage's speed, and recovery time from a bad change can take longer, especially with a large number of devices. If a bad change is made with machine creation services, the replication process can take a while to revert, whereas, with a provisioning server, all machines can be rebooted quickly.

Within thirty minutes, I can restore my system to its previous state using the provisioning server.

Technical support is not the best. The quality of technical support has declined over time. Previously, their support was excellent, and you had to pay for each call. 

The support staff were very efficient and did not waste time. However, they have now changed their support model so that it's included with your licensing, and they have hired new staff. 

The first-line support staff follows a scripted process, and they are not necessarily highly skilled. You have to go through all the steps before you can speak to someone knowledgeable, or you have to insist that it's an emergency and you need immediate assistance.

In general, the support used to be good, but currently, I am not satisfied with it.

It depends on the image management that you choose to use. 

Provisioning Server is one such solution, but it can be challenging to set up without the right expertise. As an alternative, Citrix offers another image management technology called Machine Creation Services, which is easier to use but can significantly increase storage consumption.

Their licensing model used to be on a per-year basis, where you would negotiate the cost per user for a year. For instance, if you had 25,000 users, you could negotiate the cost accordingly. However, they are transitioning to a subscription-based model where the cost is incurred monthly. 

They argue that this model allows companies to switch from a capital expense to an operational expense, making budgeting easier. However, I am not a fan of this model. I prefer paying only for the number of licenses that I need based on the number of concurrent users, like the previous model.

It is important to receive proper training rather than relying solely on online resources or Googling.

I have been using it successfully in larger enterprise deployments since 1997.

I would rate Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops a nine out of ten.

I am currently working as a senior infrastructure engineer for a company, but in the past, I have also been a reseller and had my own consulting company where I sold and provided consulting services for Citrix products.

Our usage of Citrix Workspace includes standard office applications as well as specialized ones, such as those for automotive design and engineering from a major car manufacturer.

This solution has been convenient for us and has our capital cost increased.

The most valuable feature of Citrix Workspace is the virtual desktop that we can use anywhere, at any time, and without taking our laptop.

I have noticed that the current compatibility issue with the latest version of Windows 11 is a concern for me and my client. While the client has support for Windows 11, it appears that the Citrix Workspace is only compatible with Windows 10, which does not support the newest version. This is an area that I believe could be improved upon.

I have been using Citrix Workspace for approximately two years.

Citrix Workspace is stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 6000 users using the solution.

Sometimes we escalate issues to the technical support of Citrix Workspace.

I rate the support from Citrix Workspace a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We have tried VMware but it did not fit our needs and this is why we are using Citrix Workspace.

The initial setup of Citrix Workspace is simple.

The process of deploying Citrix Workspace is simple and straightforward. All you need to do is download the front portion of the website, double-click on the package, and utilize the default settings. It should not require much effort to successfully implement this application.

We used a Microsoft solution called SCCM to automatically install Citrix Workspace.

The solution is straightforward to maintain.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Citrix Workspace an eight out of ten.

I use it for VDI; it's a virtual desktop community.

It's a full SSL solution, so no additional VPN or security features can be added. The solution itself provides SSL connectivity. It's a good solution.

It would be great if they included VPN features and improved connectivity.

I have been using it for four years now.

It is stable once configured.

It is a scalable solution. There are around a thousand end users. 

It is regularly used. We plan to expand its usage in the future.

We have vendor support. Because it's a new solution for us, we wanted support directly from the vendor until we build internal capacity.

The tech support is fast, knowledgeable, and customer-friendly.

The initial setup's complexity depends on your expertise. It should be done by an expert. For our team, we have an expert who handles installation and deployment.

So, it was straightforward for us.

It integrates smoothly with our existing infrastructure without needing additional resources. It's straightforward.

We have seven experts who manage everything from the Citrix side. It depends on the client's interests and requirements.

It is good in ROI aspect for our case.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. I would recommend it if anyone with VDI connectivity use case wants to use it.

If a client wants remote connectivity and resource sharing, I recommend Citrix. VMware Horizon is another option with similar features. It depends on the requirements.

I use the solution in my company for hybrid users and support.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the convenience and the ease of setup the tool provides.

From an improvement perspective, I want to have multiple logins in one JUMP file, if possible. Nowadays in my company, we have to spare one PC as a jump point for the user. My company's purpose is to have multiple jump points. Improvements are required to be made in the solution since, presently, with the tool, hybrid users have to get involved with multiple logins.

In the future, the product should have some mobile applications. Though in our company, we can use the product through mobile by using Microsoft desktop, the screen is not that friendly enough.

I have been using Citrix Workspace for two years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution as seven and a half out of ten. There are some issues with the product's scalability, considering that Citrix found a loophole in the solution after my company had used it for two years. My organization needs to see whether the loophole found by Citrix is dangerous and whether we will be exposed to vulnerabilities. Most organizations use Citrix Workspace with standard settings and as per what is suggested by Citrix.

More than 1,000 people use the tool in my company.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten. I am happy with the support offered by the product.

Positive

I have experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop. If I compare Microsoft Remote Desktop and Citrix Workspace, I would say that Microsoft Remote Desktop is used internally in our company. Citrix offers license-based tools. In our company, we prefer using Microsoft Remote Desktop. Microsoft Remote Desktop uses more resources and networks compared to Citrix. Citrix offers more optimized solutions.

The product's initial setup phase is simple and easy.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid model.

If one is a high price and ten is a low price, I rate the tool's price a three.

In terms of security features, the product offers MFA functionalities. Citrix has yet to disclose some issues with the tool's security features. I heard that Citrix found some loopholes in the product, and they have yet to be covered up.

The product can be easily integrated with other tools.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We are using Citrix for remote connectivity. We have multiple types that are deployed in different clients. Some are desktops as services, some as workspaces, et cetera.

Our company is procuring the license for it; the customer is using it.

It's for engineers to remotely connect to the console or desktop of the client or the customer side for debugging or resolving issues. That's where we use it primarily.

The remote desktop connectivity is where we have our focus. That's the main use case. 

The product is stable.

We've never had scalability issues.

We want to reduce costs. They should offer a different pricing model. 

Some manual work is required now with Citrix, like installing some client agents, et cetera, which could be automated. We'd really like to see more automation in the future. 

It is not easy to set up. 

It's part of our application, so we've been working with the product for more than a year or so.

So far, the solution has been quite stable. I would rate it eight out of ten. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't had any issues with scalability. That said, scaling also depends on how many users are trying to access it at a given time. As we move some of these applications to the cloud, we will face the scalability question. However, those issues will be addressed later. 

We currently have hundreds, or even thousands, of users on the solution right now.

Technical support is good. I would rate them eight out of ten. 

Positive

I've also worked with AWS Workspaces. I also have experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I haven't previously worked with any other solution in this company.

The initial setup is not easy. For example, there are agents that need to be deployed and the agent deployment has some issues when the customer has certain patching or operating systems that are not compatible. 

While this solution is mostly on-prem, we are working to move more toward the cloud. We'll have to explore how we can leverage cloud capabilities in the future. 

I'm not sure how long the deployment takes precisely. 

There are a few ways customers may save costs by using this solution. 

It's basically to maintain the applications, especially medical devices. Typically, one way the product can save a company money is if a person would traditionally have to go to the site and find the problem. If there is no option for remote connectivity or desktop, then that can be expensive. That will add to the costs. 

A second issue is uptime. If you don't have the capability to jump on a machine and start troubleshooting right away, then it'll take more time to get the system up if something happens.

We'd like the solution to be less expensive and are looking for alternative options. The cost is on the higher side. We pay for the licensing on an annual basis.

The technical support costs depend on the contract. We have separate contracts that are different based on the customer. If the contract covers technical support, that is fine, however, if it's a basic contract, then we have to pay for the technical support.

I cannot speak to the exact amount the company pays at this time. 

We now want to see the other options in the market and make some comparisons. As we go forward with the next application, we will probably look at the whole picture and see the best product, especially from a feature and host perspective.

We need to see what's there in the market and which has less manual work. We want to see how we can reduce costs and also improve the overall CI/CD process of packaging something with the customer.

We're a partner. We are using Citrix both for ourselves and our customers. 

Citrix is one of the pioneers in this area and has been around for a long time. The technical support is good. From a usability standpoint, it's also good; however, there are some aspects, like hosting, and especially on-prem deployments, where some manual work is needed. It could be that we are not doing as per the latest guidelines or something, which we need to look at and see what we can improve. That said, overall, it's a good product for remote connectivity and remote desktop applications.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

The tool supports remote work, allowing users to access apps and data from anywhere with the same speed as if they were in the office.

The most beneficial feature is seamless remote access, particularly for applications rather than full endpoints. Security features include full data encryption and integrated SSL VPN through NetScaler for secure access.

I have found that Citrix DaaS is still a complex product, especially on the desktop side, which affects scalability. Although it works well on the apps side, the desktop aspect still has room for improvement in scalability. Managing multiple OSs centrally doesn't reduce many problems, and the product remains almost on par with its competitors like VMware Vue.

The tool was once the leader in this market, and while it still offers competitive functionality, it could have enhanced security features and third-party integrations. For example, OneDrive can't be fully integrated, and Outlook's email indexing often has issues, leading to search problems for end users.

In the last two years, Citrix DaaS' technical support has lagged, particularly in India, where it was previously quite good. While I wouldn't say it has completely deteriorated, there has been some slowness. If earlier the quality of support was around 85% to 90%, it has now slowed down to about 70%. This decline might be related to a decrease in customers using the product.

Neutral

The initial setup is also complex due to the number of components in Citrix DaaS' architecture, and customers typically need partner support to deploy it. While it has tried to simplify by moving complexities to the cloud, the on-premise components still pose challenges.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten.