Citrix Gateway Reviews

We primarily use the solution for secure remote access and endpoint evaluation, and basically, that's it

The remote access, the ICA proxy access, is the most valuable aspect of the product.

It offers an easy initial setup. 

The solution is scalable.

It's stable. 

The solution could always be cheaper. 

It would be nice if they offered easier setups and implementation wizards. 

I've been using the solution for a long time. It's been about ten years or so. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale very well. That's not an issue at all. 

The number of users depends on the customer. We have some customers that have 15 to 100 users. Others have up to 3,000 users. It all depends. 

For the deployment, we generally don't need technical support. We do need technical support for issues, and that's it.

The solution is very easy to set up. It's straightforward. it's not complex at all. 

I work as an integrator, so I can set up the solution easily. I work as an integrator or a consultant for several customers. However, you can do it in-house.

That said, normally customers contract a consultant to do the deployment, and sometimes it's integrated within a broader Citrix solution. 

There are many licensing options. Some clients prefer to pay monthly. Others pay outright and then just pay for support. Others pay for an annual license. 

I'd rate the solution three out of five in terms of affordability.

We use both cloud and on-premises deployments. 

We're using the latest version of the solution. 

It does what it's meant to do. It's a very stable solution. It's very easy to upgrade from a single gateway to other features that are present on the same platform, like the application firewall, and the IP reputation is really valuable if you want to protect your environment.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Our biggest, most consistent problem was renewing certificates. Otherwise, it works like it isn't even there. It's just a workhorse.

I'm pretty well settled on Citrix. They have the highest performing application on the planet, as far as I know.

Just creating that gateway to the storefront for Citrix is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us.

It's extremely complicated and it's not intuitive. The solution requires a lot of training to get going on it. I'm not sure that that's necessarily a critique on it. It may be more of a critique on me and my abilities with it, however, it isn't necessarily straightforward. It could stand for some improvement in that sense.

If there were wizards for standard deployments, that might be nice. If there were prompts for situations like trying to deploy one virtual server behind one virtual storefront where the how-to was explained, that would be great. Other than that, you have to get really deep in the gears and figure out which gear you need to move and what lever you've got to pull. It's complex.

I've used the solution as recently as three to six months ago. I have been using the solution off and on in one shape or form for probably eight years.

The solution is rock solid. The only problem I ever had with stability on any consistent basis was replacing certificates on a yearly or semi-yearly basis. Otherwise, it is great and extremely reliable.

The solution has a great ability to scale. That's not a problem at all on the solution.

Their help desk is reasonably good. However, without wizards, I can spend two hours on a technical support call just trying to figure out how to set something up. That's not a slight on their level of service; however, if the solution made a few design tweaks, it would mean I could spend less time calling them for assistance.

The initial setup was complex; it was not straightforward.

The deployment takes about one to two hours.

It's a very feature-rich device. You have to dial into the specifics of what you want to use. It's like a Swiss army knife. It's got a thousand different uses and you only have one or two that you want to use it for. You have figure out just how to set up for those one or two uses.

I have a good deal of experience with Citrix. They're sitting on top of the heap as far as I can tell. It's not just clout and name recognition, but the actual product and actual performance delivery are stellar. They've got it set far as I know.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution a solid nine out of ten. It's a pain to set up, however, once you've got that sorted, it's an extremely solid product.

We are using Citrix Gateway for load balancing, remote access and security/safety.

The gateway help us to monitor the remote access and load balancing. We manage end users services through the gateway as well. 

We have users in a remote environment, home or branch offices that require access. So to enable the service to the end users, they should come through the gateway. It is advised also by Citrix to do that. So that is the reason we have the Gateway.

Sometimes the common issue that we face is service instability. For unknown reason it fails. However, we resolve the issue immediately through the management interface. When it comes to the VDA environment, working on the minor issue we encounter is important.

I have been using Citrix Gateway for the past 3 year.

Citrix Gateway is stable at this point.

Technical support is very good for our needs.

Positive

Citrix Gateway is complex. Citrix Gateway requires hardware resources. You need first to deploy properly your network environment. You have to properly deploy your hardware environment after that you can deploy the Gateway. This might affect the quick deployment of the Citrix Gateway. Hence, the deployment have dependency, it needs proper strategy and planning.

You need to have a consultant. We were advised to have a consultant for the deployment. 

It is expensive and requires proper planning with strategy.

I would rate Citrix Gateway a nine out of ten.

We mainly use it to connect to one of our service products for clients in Melbourne, Australia. 

Compared to other VPNs, I didn't find much difference. It used to take a few seconds to connect, but once it was connected, it was reliable with no interruptions. That's the good thing about it. 

The initial connection could be faster. That handshake takes a few seconds sometimes. That could be better and improved upon. 

I've been using Citrix Gateway for about three months now.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten because of the flow and in establishing the connection. There is room for improvement here. 

For our use case, it was scalable. There were at least 25 end users using this solution from remote locations. And once the connection was established, there weren't any complaints.

I used the Cisco VPN a long time ago.

The setup was done by the client-side IT team. They did the remote login and set it up completely on my laptop. It was done in-house. No external consultants were involved.

It's quite secure, and it gets the job done.

I would definitely recommend it. The only thing is why the initial connection was slow. Either the infra team or the Citrix team can figure it out, that could be really helpful. But I have no clue. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The load balancing part is good.

The support provided is not satisfactory. Compared to other products, the WAF part is costly. There is no innovation in WAF. The solution lacks maturity. They should enhance their cloud capabilities, LB, and develop a more efficient cloud-based WAF.

I have been using Citrix as a customer for six years.

We cater the solution to medium and large businesses.

When you call their support number, customer service takes longer than usual when you call their support number, especially during or after working hours. Sometimes, if you call them after working hours in the evening, it might take around 30-45 minutes to connect you with an engineer, so there is a waiting time. The existing engineers seem less experienced than those five years ago. They often ask us to involve other support vendors and take significant time to troubleshoot the issue.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and takes a few minutes to complete. Once you get the product properly, everything is installed in it. The upgrade is very smooth.

Compared to other products, WAF is more costlier than LB, but in Citrix, LB is more expensive than WAF. We have a yearly subscription. You may get a discount if you go for three years. There is an additional cost for support, and the license covers only VM.

The solution’s maintenance is easy. One person is enough to maintain the solution.

Citrix is a good solution for basic load balancing. It may require highly skilled resources to manage it effectively. It should be scalable on the cloud. With the increasing shift towards the cloud, cloud capabilities could be enhanced. There could be an improvement in the WAF part and cloud services optimization. Overall, it is a good product.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We use Citrix NetScaler as a WAF gateway to protect web applications, with Multi-tenancy. We have also enabled SSLVPN ( Remote access ) and Mobile Device management on the same solution.

The features that we have found most valuable are the web app support and VPN. 

Citrix NetScaler is something that connects the deployment. To improve:

• The interface should be more user-friendly.
• Integration with other applications must improve.
• They should provide training videos. 
• The product needs to have a good dashboard.
  

It's too early to say how the product can improve because I just implemented it. 

The dashboard or interface should be more clear in reporting issues. Integration with other applications should be more user-friendly.

I would rate the stability of Citrix Netscaler an eight out of 10.

I would rate the scalability of Citrix Netscaler an eight out of 10.

We want Citrix to do their support level at a higher standard. They should provide some training videos for us.

We used Barracuda. We switched from Barracuda because Citrix offered better features and scalability.

The initial setup was complex to install. It took almost three weeks.

We used a reseller. Our experience with them was not bad. It was standard and issue-free.

The ROI will depend on the business model. 

We have an annual license.

We also evaluated F5 and Barracuda WAF.

I would recommend to other people to implement this product. Use Citrix Netscaler. It is 100%. Otherwise, I would give only a five or six out of 10 for the product.

We use the solution for testing environment creation.

I like that we have access to all systems in one place. The performance is comparable. The connectivity is good. The user interface is okay.

The initial setup could be made easier.

I have been using the solution for a few years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is scalable. Around 500 people in my organization use the product.

The setup was not complex, but it was not that easy. We have a deployment team.

The deployment can be done in-house.

The product has its benefits. We can maintain our systems using the solution.

I might recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

As Citrix Gateway is a third party solution, we wish to have one which is more integrated and involves less administration. We want one which would allow access with a single click and only require RDP and the clicking of a single icon. 

The solution is stable. 

Tech support is not that great. Whenever an issue arises, it takes them time to respond and they do so via email. This is something we do not like. 

The initial setup is not straightforward at all. I feel it to be complex and unclear. 

The reason we were comparing Citrix Gateway to other solutions is to ensure that a VPN can be used on a desktop, for third-party security reasons. 

We don't want a situation in which a person can connect to his desktop, but is forced to use our environment using Citrix Gateway. There is no need to use the solution if one wishes to utilize Cisco VPN for connecting to Azure via VDI or to remote the RDP into it. However, Citrix Gateway gives one a better picture of place. Its administration is a bit better and it makes the creation of videos easier and faster once it's set up. 

My advice to others who are contemplating using the solution is that going with Cisco is preferable, even though Citrix Gateway is a good product. 

Automation is important. At the moment, I am testing for ease of administration and, with the risk that ransomeware poses, for security. 

I rate Citrix Gateway as a six out of ten.