NetScaler Reviews

We use Citrix NetScaler for policy URLs for web applications and RDP for Windows servers.

Reducing the content searching to publishing your web application, the OTP for two-factor authentication is the most valuable feature of NetScaler.

I wanted to use most features of NetScale, like the Web Application Firewall, but I need to learn how to use it. When we want to use OTP for two-factor authentication, it first appears on the authentication page where we can put the credentials. Then, we are directed to the application page and type the credentials again. But we want to use the OTP and access the web application without typing the credentials again. Typically, if we have an issue in the configuration and ask for a support request, that support doesn't help. They only talked about new implementations and charged me for it.

The customers needed help but did not find the web useful for the tool.

The technical support could be better. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed. And most of the time, I finished fixing the problem by looking on the internet or by finding documents about the problem on Google.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler for seven years.

It is a stable solution. It crashed only once, four years ago. We're using the DSLD configuration with two load balancers, two carriers, and two ISPs.

The technical support is bad. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed.

I rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

Previously, I used Microsoft TMG but then switched to NetScaler since it is a better solution.

The initial setup was complex initially. The first time it took about six months to be deployed. But it's straightforward now and takes only a couple of hours. Around four to five people were needed to complete the deployment.

It was implemented through an in-house team.

There is a return on investment using the solution.

The solution is undoubtedly very good, but it is expensive.

My experience with the support is not good. Owing to its poor technical support, I rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are using Citrix ADC for SSL offloads and security, secure remote access, loads balancing, and application firewall, web application firewall.

The most valuable features of Citrix ADC are load balancing and application firewall.

Overall the price of Citrix ADC could be more competitive.

I have been using Citrix ADC for approximately 10 years.

The stability of Citrix ADC is good.

Citrix ADC is highly scalable. You can upgrade it and put increase the bandwidth or add more security features. You can start from the basic standard version, up to the Platinum version.

Citrix ADC's initial setup was simple. The full process took approximately a half-day.

We did the implementation of Citrix ADC in-house because we have the Citrix consultancy services for our customers. They utilize our services on-premise, and in-house. However, typically, the end-user customers, for private/public cloud,  have to have some deep technical knowledge. It's not for every IT person to implement. That's why the consulting team is needed to implement these kinds of solutions because they're very sensitive and high critical position in terms of application firewall, et cetera.

We have one person who handles the support of our Citrix ADC. For our customers, we use one person for their support.

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.

It is a very good solution.

I rate Citrix ADC a nine out of ten.

My primary use case is for disaster recovery.

The best feature of Citrix is its track record of stability in its features.

An area for improvement would be the difficulty in finding information about standard licensing costs over the internet. They should provide some reference prices on the net to be quickly referred to. I would also like to see virtualization of the ad systems in the next release.

Citrix is a pretty robust and stable product. It has an edge because it's more stable than other solutions like Avaya and VMWare.

This solution is scalable.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We have one project for our telecom and another for our port to manage traffic.

In our country, it is not possible to implement in the cloud.

• Loadbalancing
• It has disaster recovery functionalities.

We are working the Oracle to publish all the web applications on the platform in the next phase of the application. This will be good for us because there are additional security features added into the platform from the website.

The reporting is not so good. They don't have an application to connect the logs.

The stability is good. If there is a problem, the load will be shifted to other sites automatically, which has been a good experience for us.

It is working now at two sites.

The technical support is fine. I would rate the technical support as a five (out of five). They gave us extra support during the deployment phase.

We used the documentation to deploy it. 

When we deploy the product, we also buy the Professional Services from Citrix. Another engineer and I also worked on these products.

We have all the features and functions of Citrix because we have a premium license.

For partners, NetScaler is not as expensive price-wise versus F5. The biggest difference between NetScaler and F5 is the support. F5 has better support, and it is important to have good support. I have recommended to NetScaler that they improve their support.

NetScaler is a good product for partners.

I would rate NetScaler as an eight (out of 10).

Internal Load Balancing and Content switching features are the main reasons for selecting this product.

Imagine providing a brand new Web service that offers persistent client-server connections, IP restriction, URL rewrite (such as remove "/assets/" path from client-side URL path), cache for CSS or JS files and requires security features to be enabled. And do not forget that this service runs on a custom port, but you must publish it using the standard HTTP port, and you only have a public IP address and it's already in use on the NetScaler. You can easily use the GUI to set up all these requirements on the same network device within 20-30 minutes. (If you do the same steps on CLI, it might take less time.)

It depends on your needs. 

• If you need PCI-compliance and have high security requirements, WAF is the most valuable feature. 
• If you need to monitor your load-balancing services with complex types of monitoring, make sure everything is alright, and load balancing is important, Content Switching and Monitoring features are the keys to your needs.
• If you want to provide a lot of static images or data, the Caching feature works best for you.

We have used all the functions. I would say the rewriting and redirection functions are must-have's for us.

We had some bugs in the previous firmware. These were not big issues, but more testing on the firmware would be key to happier customers.

We deployed NSX on our infrastructure last year. It was great, except for the standard load balancer. We were already using Netscaler MPX on our physical level and expected almost the same features from NSX load balancer. But it was really hard to even monitor the services on it, and we did not have time to wait for it to be improved. So we downloaded and tested the trial version of Netscaler VPX. We've already gotten to know the product, have made comparisons with products from other brands, but it did not take long to select it. For now, it is the best solution for us.

The primary use for using it is the wholesale application and VDIs.

I have been working the cost factors, while the performance and application are good, the factory cost brought back to you is not. Therefore, we are currently comparing the product with Microsoft RemoteApp.

The most valuable feature would be the Citrix permanent server.

It is cost-effective, if you consider the permanent server. Also, the management is easy with no downtimes. 

There are some features which are missing.

What I am looking for is something like OneDrive. We are facing an issue with OneDrive on the XenApp and XenDesktop. We can't use OneDrive with what we have. So, a fully, operational OneDrive support is what I am looking for.

Stability is good.

Scalability is good.

We like working with Citrix technical support.

I have been working with Citrix technology for the last 10 to 13 years. We have not switched solutions during this time. 

From a Citrix perspective, it was straightforward. From the application perspective, there are some tweaks that we need to do. So, we are working on those tweaks.

Currently, we are evaluating the cost prospective from the BDA cost prospective. We are evaluating Microsoft and Citrix as they are the leaders in this solution. If you compare Citrix and Microsoft RemoteApp, Citrix is the best compared to RemoteApp. RemoteApp is basically meant for a small business use case.

We are using Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop, but we are planning to now expand into the same product. 

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Cost
• Performance
• Stability
• Scalability
• High availability.

Load Balancer and Access Gateway

Allowed secure access to authenticated user not on the network without having to download client side software

Alert Management

2 years

Minor issue setting up VeriSign Certificates

No

Not applicable - We were only setting up 4 Virtual Servers

6

We have several use cases but as an example, I have a banking customer who wants to know about their environment with Virtual Apps and Desktops. They're interested in performance, connections and network latency. The management part of Virtual Apps and Desktop is not available when you look at Citrix Cloud, it doesn't provide that information. To get more, you need to use ADM. I'm a cloud solutions architect and we are resellers of Citrix ADM.

This solution provides customers with the option to leverage all the features to gain more insight and visibility of their environment. Previously, they were always complaining about this lack of data and now performance has improved. 

I think the analytics is the most valuable feature. 

I think the interface could be better. I think some customers struggle with that. I mean, the learning curve takes a little longer than in other solutions so I think the interface and maybe training could be improved. 

I'd like to see another licensing model that could complement or be similar to licensing models of other networking solutions. It adds flexibility for the customer. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My customers are usually mid-size organizations. Some small business, a few large companies. I now have a client that has close to 10,000 users.

I think Citrix has good technical support and a good escalation strategy.

The initial setup is very straightforward, very easy. Our implementation strategy is to make a personal assessment for each client and then deploy the tool and all necessary components. It doesn't take more than two hours.

Customers have looked at Ryzen or other cloud services like Amazon, Microsoft Desktop or Azure Virtual Desktops. The advantages of Citrix is that it's managed from a single interface whereas other solutions don't have that presentation or that interface. I also think that ADM and other solutions Citrix offers are very complementary to each other. 

It's important to know about other Citrix solutions, it improves the experience. Citrix improves the Virtual Apps and Desktop interface in Citrix Cloud. There are two ways to visualize or take action with the data. I think they are well on the way to being the right solution. It's very viable, they're doing a good job.