Amazon Elastic Load Balancing vs NetScaler comparison

"It is a very scalable solution in which you can add more servers instantly."

"The feature that I like the most is the scalability. The solutions I build often have many pieces, which are very complicated. If a client comes to me with a design, my developer has made this as a template or a cloud formation script. It's a design on paper, and I want it executed a certain way. I can do that quickly and repeatedly with AWS. That is a considerable advantage because I can take that template and do it five times in different zones. That is an excellent feature based on a template, et cetera."

"It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy."

"Amazon Elastic Load Balancing transfers the data securely from servers to users and splits the traffic based on peak times."

"The most valuable feature of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scaling."

"The solution is very well integrated into Amazon's services."

"It is straightforward to deploy."

"Security and monitoring for high-performance applications are some of the top features."

"Manageability and visibility are good."

"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN."

"High availability, performance, and security are the main pillars. It enhances the security for accessing the applications."

"What I like most about Citrix NetScaler is its stability, and I didn't see a lot of issues with it."

"I found that the GUI was very easy to to navigate. If you were looking for something, it was fairly easy to find. There's a lot of third-party documentation and information available online as well."

"The web application firewalling component is a powerful feature."

"We appreciate that this solution facilitates our access to Citrix internet."

"It is a very stable solution."

"We faced some issues with the health check."

"They should improve the solution's pricing."

"It would be good if we had a product that integrates well with third-party vendors. Some of our customers want a multi-cloud solution. They don't want to be tied up to or be in just one cloud."

"One issue that we faced with ALB was that leaf-level certificate validation was not happening. It is not that user-friendly in that aspect."

"The machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict."

"The reporting could be simplified so that the client sees a report of what they cached at the end of the month and the number of hits. It should have metrics above and beyond their Google analytics, etc. You can't do that with the solutions from AWS. You have to build sophisticated cloud trails, reports, dashboards, etc. The setup is significant, and it's hard to manage. You'll need to hire someone or pay a consultant on a regular basis to manage it, and it's not for the faint of heart."

"The product should be made as an alternative to Amazon services. It would be easier for us if you got one service that is available everywhere."

"The tool could enhance the internal load balancer with better health monitoring. The external load balancer needs more security parameters to protect it from the internet, as it currently lacks protection. It's okay for basic load balancing and those looking for basic functionality in an application load balancer. However, if someone is going to onboard a critical application, like in the banking sector, I wouldn't suggest Amazon Elastic Load Balancer because of security issues. There are no firewall restrictions."

"I feel that Citrix NetScaler's customer support needs to improve."

"Needs configuration processes like disabling LB VIPs, automatically disabling the IPs used."

"The product provides some templates to integrate with applications like MS Exchange, MS SharePoint, SAP Enterprise Portal, and others. However, the last update for these templates was 2013 (lots of applications are running on versions newer then 2013)."

"This is an expensive solution."

"I would like to see multifactor authentication added to this solution to improve the security."

"Currently, it is not easy to use the configuration capabilities of the product."

"The licensing model and technical support of the solution could be improved."

"Citrix should improve the documentation. It is not really clear how to set up many features to our advantage. When we setup Citrix NetScaler ADC, we have to figure it out by ourselves without a lot of documentation."

"The solution is expensive."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of connections one uses. It is a free tool for a certain amount of connections, which runs into thousands, and after that, there is a certain amount to be paid to Amazon."

"The product is not cheap."

"The solution's pricing is $30 per month."

"I have no issues with the tool's pricing."

"There is a yearly license."

"The solution's pricing is low and I rate it a nine out of ten."

"Citrix NetScaler VPX is not the cheapest solution out there, but you get what you pay for."

"It's not for startups or SOHO."

"It's an expensive product but it works well."

"The license for Citrix NetScaler is on an annual basis and it is reasonably priced."

"Citrix ADC could improve the price and make it less expensive, other competitors have a better prices. This would allow Citrix ADC to keep dominating the market."

"We have been evaluating F5, Citrix, and other ADC products. Citrix is the most expense of all of them."

"We have a yearly licencing fee, and there are no additional costs."

"Its price is comparable to others and affordable."