Citrix SD-WAN [EOL] Reviews

Our company uses Citrix SD-WAN for branch-to-branch connectivity, internet routing, and firewall policies.

Citrix SD-WAN's first good feature is its connectivity between branches. The tool is quite cost-effective because it replaces the need for MPLS, which is a bit expensive. Managing Citrix SD-WAN's platform is easy since you can manage it online. One can manage all the devices in different branches on a central portal online.

Citrix SD-WAN's knowledge base has a few missing things, so you may need to seek help from support. One of the challenges in the solution is that Citrix's support takes time since it involves a bit of a lengthy process. Despite the challenges, I think the solution is good.

The solution's installation phase has certain shortcomings and needs improvement.

I have been using Citrix SD-WAN for two years. I am an end-user of the solution.

It's a stable product. We have encountered a few issues, like glitches and bugs causing some of the devices to fail, while also facing a hardware failure.

Our company faced some difficulties when trying to scale up the solution. I can say it's not easily scalable since it needs a major upgrade somewhere.

Four of my organization's branches use the product.

I rate the technical support a five out of ten. I rate the support less since the response time is too high, and a lot of time gets taken to resolve an issue for a ticket raised by us.

Neutral

Citrix SD-WAN is the first-ever solution we implemented.

Citrix SD-WAN's installation process can be termed as an average one.

Once you have the policies and if you have a new device, the deployment process takes a few minutes to half an hour.

The appliances are deployed on-premises, but the controller is cloud-based. In general, it can be considered a cloud-based solution.

One engineer is required for deployment.

Compared to other SD-WAN products in the market, Citrix SD-WAN offers the best return on investment since its annual subscription cost is quite low compared to other solutions.

Citrix SD-WAN is quite an affordable product.

Citrix SD-WAN doesn't need much maintenance. It only needs some monitoring and updating of the firmware. One person is able to do the maintenance comfortably.

It's a good solution. The only challenge with the tool will be the support offered by Citrix. There is a need for a lot of technical support required.

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

We are helping our customers create secure and redundant networks. That's the primary use case.

It’s helped my clients. For example, we did multiple roll-outs. The other banks, bank branches, require good connectivity, which is very important for a branch to have. They managed to have an SLA of almost 100%. In the case of network failures, they had very few issues, and most of the links, since they were on a traditional network, used active-passive. However, with this product, they could aggregate the bandwidth and come up with new use cases. The customers are really happy.

They have a zero downtime failover mechanism, where, when there's a link failure or a link weakness, or bad link conditions, they provide the ability to fail back seamlessly. That's the most important feature I have worked with.

The initial setup is pretty seamless.

The solution is stable.

It’s scalable.

Right now, certain SD-WAN vendors work with very strong enterprise-scale firewall features. For example, Fortinet is what most of my customers prefer to have. However, in terms of Citrix, they had minimal features. Now, they have improved things. That's an area where Citrix has to improve since Citrix is not a security company. They rely on other vendors like Zscaler. Overall, network security and next-generation firewall features are areas that they can improve on.

We have worked with them for around five years.

We haven’t had any real issues with stability. We put it in for countrywide operations, however, and we expected there would be a lot of returns. There are actually very few, and even these returns were out of Citrix's control. For example, we had a few appliances return back due to lightning and the resulting power surges. Besides that, we rarely have failures, so the client is happy.

In my case, my geography is relatively small. I operate in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and the Maldives - these kinds of countries. Here, we don't have many installations over 1,000. That said, Citrix can very easily go beyond 1,000 branches and endpoints. They have large scalable models also. For my use cases, they are scalable enough.

The customers who are using the solution 100% rely on it, at least for the branch connectivity. They are not quite keen to use inter-data-center use cases, such as WAN optimization. However, in terms of my customers, they use it 100% in most cases. We have helped some customers to improve their application performance with this solution. Most customers ask from our side from a traditional SD-WAN whether they can move to a zero-trust network. It was the evolution of Citrix. We are helping and educating our customers, et cetera.

Customer service is really good. We have had a few tech support cases. We had to do some version upgrades where we had some challenges. However, the tech support is really good. I have worked across many products, for example, for Extender Top, XenServer, et cetera. The Citrix team has been extra helpful.

Positive

My customers used the traditional BGP routing base on a normal Cisco-based solution. So this is the evolution of new tech for them. They are moving from traditional interest to SD-WAN.

We recommend products like Meraki and Fortinet. Fortinet is good, especially for some hospitality customers. We find it quite interesting. In terms of Fortinet, the customers are really keen since their CPs are very cost-efficient, so they have a big advantage in TC when compared with Citrix. Especially Fortinet, people like it due to the security advantage, and Fortinet is influencing this market in terms of network security.

Once we do the base configuration or the head setup and then the configuration, then we can send an L2 team to do the deployment with very few instructions. We ask them just to plug in the cables and download their profiles. It's quite seamless. My customers evolved from a traditional BGP environment. For them, this is quite seamless. They are happy, and the operational overhead is also lower for them.

For a single customer, the effort involved in the deployment varies. Maybe a five-man team could very easily manage the network since the failures are lower, and they also have this failover feature where even when the branch is down, they can still help the customer. Five or six people would be sufficient to manage and maintain everything. With Citrix cloud coming in and analytics help, you won’t need a big team. It's quite proactive, and not quite reactive. The number of people required is relatively low to maintain everything.

We do the deployment ourselves.

There are multiple pricing options. They have an MSP model also. However, we deployed the channel or the normal appliance model. Of course, it has been three to four years on the same price point. I'm not quite sure of the price ranges. Roughly, the hidden devices can scale up to $20K for one appliance. However, the branch CPs are USD $1,000 to $2,500.

We get everything under the list price. However, especially if you are thinking of having a branch internet breakout, then sometimes you might have to get another solution like Zscaler or Symantec for the proxy of internet security.

I’m just an end-user.

I used to work for a Citrix partner, so we were the Citrix regular partner. Right now, in my present job, I'm not affiliated with them.

What we used is the on-prem deployment. They have certain companies on the cloud. However, it's pretty much on-prem for this solution.

Potential users should ask Citrix to give firm commitments regarding product life cycles and changes. Usually, Citrix is undergoing a lot of changes internally. Their product directions change, product names change, and many things change. So Users need to check, especially if they are modernizing the network.

I’d rate the solution seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for stability and redundancy on connectivity from the branch offices to the company head office data centre. We have a head office and six remote branches. Most of the applications we deliver to the branches are through terminal services. This includes the EPR system, Microsoft Dynamics-AX. Everything is hosted on-prem. When a line between the branch office and the head office was down the branch could not operate. For most sales orders we have a 4 business hour turnaround time from order to delivery. So when a line is down we were losing sales. SD-WAN has prevented this almost completely. 

Downtime for branch offices is now almost zero. We have 100% real-time visibility into all of our lines. MPLS links have been replaced with lower-cost links, saving a larger percentage of line costs. Overall, I see SD-WAN as a must. And the Citrix SD-WAN product has delivered on expectations and exceeded them. (With later firmware updates we now have good firewall capabilities in the product too.). In one specific notable case that was an outage at an upstream provider that would have taken our Cape Town office offline. And this was on the first of the month when we process bulk orders. The branch did not even know the line was down thanks to SD-WAN. 

Lines run Active-Active. So we get better bandwidth usage i.e.we don't have backup lines sitting idle. We see the state of all lines all the time i.e. we don't have backup lines that are broken, that we only discover when a primary line fails. (This has happened even when we had an MPLS network). Downtimes on lines result in a loss of business. This is inevitable given that we run all applications through terminal applications from the head office data centers.  In the 4 years running SD-WAN, we have only had 1 branch offline due to line failures where the backup line could not cope with the additional load. 

The firewall reporting could be easier to use and filter. (It works well enough, but if I need to give an area for improvement, I think this would be it.). The built-in reporting on the product in this regard is not great. You can get a much more detailed reporting analysis using the SD-WAN center that is configurable with the product. If the additional reporting capabilities were bundled into the Master Controller Node, it would make the solution more appealing, and add better value from day one.

I have been using Citrix SD-WAN for four years. 

We have used an external consultant, (Troye) to complete the set-up. Between Troye and Citrix South Africa we were in excellent hands from beginning to end. The requirements were drafted between KOLOK, Troye the partner and Citrix South Africa.  We had very qualified consultants on site for the cut-over.  It was a smooth migration.  There were a few complex issues that came from how the ISP had configured routing in the MPLS.  These issues were resolved by Citrix.  We have subsequently removed all MPLS links. 

Easy under 18 months.

If I was going to look at this project again now, I would investigate the option of using virtual appliances rather then physical appliances. I don't know enough about this option, but I think it would have some cost and give better DR options.  

We looked at the Cisco product at the time. (Briefly). But we found the Citrix product to be better because it uses a packet by packet switching, where as the Cisco apparently switched session by session to the best line. This was some time back, and I have not looked at the Cisco product since.

I used to stress about line failures. MPLS was not working for me. MPLS gave me no visibility into the line redundancy. And MPLS is very expensive. SD-WAN was an easy choice for me.  Citrix has delivered. 

Our use case was for a distributed network. We have customers around Russia, and a customer in the Far East had infrastructure with about 5,000 kilometers between each branch. We needed to create some kind of network that was distributed through data and media or big files. The Far East isn't very stable territory, so we had to use a low-level network and create a good result in data transmission.

It was a retail company, so there were branches, and the branches needed to connect to HQ. We provided HQ and each branch with Citrix SD-WAN. We tried to use it, and it worked well. The transmission was good, and they were losing less data.

The solution is deployed on our customers' hardware.

The stability is the main feature of Citrix SD-WAN. You can also upgrade the data packages or have less transmission.

The price is the only thing that could be improved. Citrix is not a cheap solution.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The solution was stable.

We haven't used the Citrix tech support because we have our own support.

I think the ROI is okay. You have to spend a large amount of money at first, but you could see ROI in 3-5 years. It's a good proposal.

The license was a one-time purchase. It's expensive.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

It is used to get connectivity between our branches. In terms of the version, we are using version 10.1, and we have different SD-WAN devices.

The reliability of connectivity is most valuable.

I am happy with this product. If anything, its price can be reduced. It is a bit expensive.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

It is very stable. 

It is scalable. We've got about 250 users in the company. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

They have been okay to work with. I am satisfied with their support.

We didn't use any other solution previously.

I don't know about the setup. I had a consultant set it up for me. For its deployment and maintenance, we just have one person.

It is a bit expensive. A cheaper product would be good, but everybody likes things to be cheaper.

We bought the devices up front, and then we pay for the annual support.

It is not a cheap product but it serves. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

For the load balancing of the application is for load balancing and as a VPN gateway. 

We have a requirement where only the users who have a company laptop are connected to the system only using a VPN. We hand out the authority based on whether or not users have the company laptop or they can be converted by a company using the EPA, we can check if the laptop is in the domain or not. 

The VPN and the load balancing are the most valuable features. 

The reports need to be improved. We need to have them customized but they don't have that right now. I would like for them to have better system predictions. My system may be working fine right now but after making some changes, that can change and I would like to know about it. 

I would like to see better reports. 

It's been three years we have deployed this product and I have not had any downtime or any issues with the product. The product is stable.

We can upgrade easily using the license. 

There are 20,000 users that are connecting to my boxes because my websites, and other applications are posted on the NetScaler box only. We only require two people for maintenance. One is the administrator of the network and the other person is monitoring it. One is the administrator and the other is the engineer. 

Support-wise, they're good. 

We were using another solution but it had limitations and a lot of downtimes. That's when we changed the product.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Licensing is good. I don't have any issues with the rationing of it. 

Pricing-wise, it is a little bit high compared to the other products which are the market right now. Because of the stability and availability of the product, I am fine with the price, but it's a little bit on the high side compared to the other products.

We also looked at Cisco Load Balancer and Radware. We did the PoC and we found the scale was good, so that's why we bought NetScaler.

My advice is that if you want to implement NetScaler make sure to get Citrix support for help.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. I took off two points because of the bad deployment. 

The primary use case of this solution is to provide interconnectivity between branches and optimize the connection.

The most valuable feature is load balancing. This feature allows for multiple links on one device which is a lifesaver when dealing with load shedding.

I would like to see more customization to adjust for the WAN lock-out due to our unexpected power outages.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable. We only require two people for maintenance. 

The solution is extremely scalable.

The support is excellent with quick response times and resolution.

The initial setup is straightforward as long as you are familiar with the solution.

The implementation was completed in-house.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated Juniper Networks and Cisco Meraki.

I rate the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is brilliant, the way it calculates its paths and trails is great.

The hands-on customer support and load balancing that come with this solution are above all others on the market. 

I recommend the solution, especially for organizations based in areas that suffer from load shedding. 

Our primary use case is to improve reliability and prevent downtime in the event of a line failure. 

The most valuable feature is its reliability.

I would like to see support for additional reporting.

I have been using Citrix SD-WAN for four years.

The stability is excellent.

This product is really good in terms of scalability. We have about 300 people who are benefiting from it, spread out over several branches. Our users do not directly interact with it, although it provides backend support for them.

At this point, we do not expect to increase our usage.

We have been in touch with technical support in the past and Citrix has provided very good support whenever we've needed it.

We did not use another similar solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was really straightforward. Our deployment took place over about six months, deploying to one branch at a time.

We used a third-party integrator for implementation and deployment.

In summary, this is a very good product and one that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.