Citrix Gateway Reviews

Its ease of use and how everybody can easily work through it are the most valuable features.

We are currently looking at automation. It would be good if there is some way to automate it in a fast way. It should be easy to automate. It also has some security issues.

I have been using Citrix Gateway for five years.

Their technical support is good.

It is medium in terms of complexity.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Citrix Gateway a seven out of ten. There are a couple of features that could be improved. These features are available in other solutions, such as VMware.

• Netscaler Gateway
• Netscaler AAA
• Netscaler Content Switching/Load Balancing
• Central Application Delivery Controller with a huge feature set based on the latest requirements

We implement these solutions at many customer sites. This directly affects the productivity and gives the customer a very flexible solution.

The customers have the possibility to provide access to their applications and data, but the data itself won’t leave their data centers.

I can't think of anything at the moment.

We have been using NetScaler for five years.

We sometimes had issues after updates.

I would give technical support a rating of 10 out of 10.

We did not use a previous solution.

You need a very good concept and you have to do the conceptual work before you start implementing. Depending on the concept, the setup could be straightforward.

You have to do some hard work in order to get the suitable licenses.

We looked at VMware View in some projects.

All Citrix products are very flexible and give you a huge amount of possibilities. From a consulting perspective, I recommend allocating enough take time for project planning.

I'm the general manager and CEO of the company. 

I like the very flexible configuration of Citrix. It's very useful for our regulations where we are able to log features and combinations. It offers a greater variety of features than any other gateway. 

Citrix Gateway has a lot of limitations, cloud limitations as a starting point. Microsoft should combine together and solve those problems. I can't go more than three GBDs whereas on AWS I can go to five GBD and get throughput. Here I'm not able to get into throughput, so I have to deploy multiple gateways to get to throughput and that's a bigger problem.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The solution is stable and they are currently upgrading. We identified two bugs that have now been fixed. 

The solution is scalable and we have one or two people responsible for maintenance. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. If it's a complex configuration, deployment might take one week, otherwise it should just be a day or two. 

I highly recommend this product for any type of organization.

I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for load balancing.

The unified gateway and the active gateway, particularly used for desktop load balancing for web servers are the most valuable.

The solution easily integrates with other solutions.

The solution can be a bit pricey.

The stability of the solution is perfect.

Technical support is okay.

The initial installation is very easy.

We use public and private cloud deployment models.

For the use cases we have, the solution is perfect.

It's a very mature product, it is working very nicely and it's very well established. I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use NetScaler for the server and also Zen app.

The main challenge that we were facing is regarding the net application which does not work without this solution. We replaced NetScaler with the F5 solution.

I cannot say that now because it's just been six months. Nonetheless, we haven't received any complaints or performance issues so far.

The load balancing could be improved. Also, remote users should be able to carry connections to our centralized server and access applications remotely.

Stability is good I'd say. We did not face any issues this far; it's been running smoothly. We have a free application, which gives us up to 365 applications, so that comes to around 5000 users.

We were using F5 LTM (Local Traffic Manager) before. They are the market leader. We were using that, but we replaced it with the NetScaler.

The initial setup was very easy and we were able to fully deploy it, test it, and have all the applications migrated within a week. So, there's no major issue there.

The deployment strategy is very simple. We created just the domain IP. During migration, we reconfigured the replica of the current network solution, and we made the same verification in the NetScaler with the domain IP address. After the migration, we just stopped the F5 solution and enabled it on the NetScaler. So, the whole migration does not take even one minute of downtime.

We involved a consultant and they were very experienced.

I would rate this as ten out of ten because I don't see any issue and it is cheaper than F5. We are investing and getting additional features, such as features for applications. We get added value on that, which is good. We are getting everything we need.

The most valuable features are security and authentication.

The session monitoring capability is good.

I would like to see improved logging because it doesn't keep much information for the session monitoring or historical sessions.

We have not had any trouble with stability, aside from our setup issues.

We have had no issues with scalability.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

The initial setup is quite straightforward because we have been using it for some time. We did experience some setup issues, which were mostly related to misconfiguration.

The time for deployment is perhaps a week or less.

We have an in-house team that handles deployment and maintenance.

This is a solution I would recommend.

Overall, this is a good solution that is stable, but I would like to see improvements to the logging capability.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for a virtual desktop infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is that it is secure.

The price could be reduced because it is slightly more costly than others available in the market.

Technical support could be improved.

They could do something more with the dashboard.

I have been using Citrix Gateway for approximately six years.

Citrix Gateway is stable and we have not experienced any issues.

It's a scalable product.

Technical support is not great. There is no proactive support for patches that have been released. For example, there are no mailers to advise you that there are new patches available. 

There is no direct communication and there doesn't seem to be any focus on the customer.

Pricing is very high if you do a comparison with what is available in the market. It ends up being very expensive.

Apart from licensing, there are additional fees for support and partnerships.

For customers who are concerned with security and would want to have virtual machines in their environment, I recommend this solution. Otherwise, this product is costly.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It's easy to build basic configurations.

It's easy to use for both unmanaged and managed clients. It's very simple, all you need is a browser.

We have experienced issues relating to multi-factor authentication.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

Citrix Gateway is both stable and scalable. You could have anywhere from 50 to 50,000 people using it. 

The technical support is very responsive and fast. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. You can get it up and running within four hours.

I believe the pricing is comparable to SaaS.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Citrix Gateway a rating of nine.