NetScaler Reviews

The primary use case is a low balancing geo failover. However, there are a lot of use cases that we use it for.

We use it for Citrix NetScaler MPX deployments. It is being used for publishing Citrix XenApp, mostly for load balancing, but we have been evaluating solutions for deploying it in multi-data centers. 

• Global servers
• Load balancing

We need multi-site and DNS failover.

It is difficult to customize. It is more difficult to customize than F5, for example. They have custom iRules that you can write for customized situations. 

I would like to see more integration for single sign-on on the Citrix side. F5 has done a lot of work on single sign-on capabilities, and it seems that NetScaler might be lacking a bit compared to F5.

We have had very good luck with stability. However, we have always deployed in an HA configuration.

Scalability is great. One of the best features of NetScaler is that it can scale out.

Technical support seems very knowledgeable if we have any problems. Support had been good when we needed it. We have not needed it that much, but they are good to work with.

We used Windows Network Low Balancing.

We had a consulting service help us with the setup.

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

You need to have somebody who understands application delivery controllers and all their features. If you don't have someone, I would highly recommend training in professional services to help out with it.

We are sort of in the evaluation process of replacing everything with one solution.

• Easy to configure the settings
• Easy to operate
• A lot of useful network and other great settings
• A lot of official and unofficial documentations are available on the internet

It is used specially to provide Citrix Access Gateway to customers and their employees.

I cannot think of any features that should be added because the product has a lot of useful features already.

Over a year with two customers.

No, easy to deploy.

No, very stable.

No, because it can be merged into a cluster.

Yes, we also use F5 Big-IP LTM and in the past we used Cisco ACE. We didn’t switch specifically to use NetScaler, as we use the most appropriate solution depending on the customers needs.

It depends on the customers needs. If they need high availability, if they need Clustering, the number of virtual servers needed and so on.

We used both of them, but when we used the vendor team, their skills were bad and rework from our in-house was needed.

Yes, we use F5 Big-IP LTM and in the past we used Cisco ACE.

Yes, two pieces of advice

1. Do the official training; and 
2. Use the Citrix documentation

We are only using it for load balancing and application firewalls.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its load balancing.

Citrix ADC is actually not the most preferable product from our perspective but for the virtual desktop use it is very efficient. It's very integrated with the virtual desktop. It has a seamless integration and that is the most valuable part.

Since it has a significant integration with its virtualization, that has improved the usability access of the virtual desktops.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated.

In the next release, I would like to see advanced language support for managing the traffic, rather than only the RegEx. That would be helpful.

I have been using Citrix ADC for about five years.

In terms of stability, it is not as good as F5. 

It is not as scalable as F5.

There are three people using it, and they're all engineers.

It takes one staff member for the deployment and maintenance - also an engineer.

We have a static user base in our organization, but for our customer base its use is going to be expanded.

The technical support is not bad.

We are using most of the solutions together, so there is no switching between the products. We are currently using F5, too, and we always prefer that first. But it depends on the deployment and it depends on the needs. For deployments we choose Citrix.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took two hours.

Our strategy is just deploy and use it. It's a simple process for us.

We are the integrators.

If they are going to use it with the VDI, it is a very good product, but it has weaknesses in application firewall development. So if they are going to only do load balancing in an SMB solution, it is a good product. But if they're consulting as an enterprise product and in a very large scale deployment enterprise, Citrix is not a complete solution. But for an SMB product and a basic cloud balance, it is a good product.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Citrix ADC a seven. It does what it does. It is a product for some simple tasks, but just not suitable for the complex tasks.

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.

We are using NetScaler VPX as a gateway for our virtual applications and desktops.

The most valuable feature is the securing of virtual apps and desktops.

This solution increases the backend network service performance, which is one of the things that we like the most.

Bugs in the software have had an impact on us. Better quality control or quality assurance would be an improvement.

Some of our customers have questioned the security of this solution lately, wondering whether it is safe or not, so enhancements in this respect would be good.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler VPX for seven or eight years.

Citrix NetScaler VPX is a very stable solution and it is used on a daily basis. Its use is quite crucial.

This is a scalable solution and it is easy to expand.

We have a variety of clients that range in size from small businesses to enterprise-level customers. Most of our clients are of medium size.

The technical support for this solution is pretty good.

Prior to this solution, we used F5 BIG-IP and the Azure Load Balancer.

The initial setup is simple. It takes 30 or 40 minutes to deploy.

I am a consultant and the person responsible for deploying this solution. Usually, one or two engineers are used during deployment.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the scope of the project. I would say that two to three people are the average.

The licensing costs for this solution vary depending on which model is being used. It comes in many different sizes and models. I think that the cost of support, or maintenance, might be in addition to the standard feeds.

Our clients do evaluate other options and vendors such as F5, Cisco, Palo Alto, and Microsoft Azure before deciding on which solution to implement. People generally choose Citrix NetScaler because of the performance that it offers. Also, if they have other products by Citrix then it is generally a good idea to stay with the same vendor because of compatibility.

This is definitely a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for network load balancing on the edge of the network. 

The solution's most valuable feature is the content.

The solution is a bit more expensive than some of the available solutions in this region. One solution in particular that I noticed was cheaper was Kemp. 

The solution is very stable. We don't have any downtime or issues of that nature.

The solution is pretty scalable. Right now, we are only using about 40-50% of the solution's capacity. We have about 4,000 users connecting through the system. Currently, we don't plan to increase usage.

Support has been okay so far. We only ever call about two times a year, but each time we get the right help. Once we called about custom features and they supported us quite well.

We previously used Kemp Load Balancer. We still have it as part of our infrastructure. The main difference between the two is the Citrix solution is part of a physical appliance, whereas the Kemp solution is a virtual appliance.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had a very good engineer that handled the implementation.

There are costs in addition to the licensing fees, so the overall price can begin to add up.

I would recommend the solution to people who need the services and features provided by Citrix. It's a wonderful product. We've never had any downtime on our NetScaler solution. I'm pretty happy with it.

I'd rate it nine out of ten.

• Web Application Firewall
• Content Switching Applications
• SSL Handling

Deployment of NetScalers on our DMZ enables our organization to implement a secured gateway for our Web Portal, Inbound/Outbound application web service calls across our partners/clients, security, and Traffic Management.

The web management console uses a Java plugin. Some improvements are needed on the web management console.

6 years.

We only encountered hardware issues in which were addressed with a firmware upgrade.

None.

Good. Citrix has been very supportive.

Good.

None were previously used.

The appliance's initial setup was very easy and seamless.

We have our own competency pool for this appliance. Though we have direct support services from Citrix.

Consider the sizing first before purchasing the appliance.

Yes, BigF5.

Our company is based in Ecuador. I'm a key account manager and a business consultant. 

With Citrix ADC, our clients can improve their security, performance, and they can escalate when they need it. It's a complete solution for application delivery and security.

When it comes to all Citrix products, price is an issue, because all their products are complete solutions. They have all the characteristics that our clients require, but it almost falls down when we are competing with less expensive solutions.

In Ecuador, people don't just rely on the functionalities of a solution, the price point is very important, even though they know that Citrix is a better product. I'd like to see a different licensing model that would take all that into account. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable and flexible. 

Most of our clients don't require support for the product. We manage the solution and organize periodical maintenance. If there are any firmware updates or a patch that Citrix has released, we install them. 

The implementation is quite difficult. We have one person who is certified in the solution and has a lot of experience with the products. Our other technicians don't have as much experience and implementation of ADC is complex for them. 

Citrix ADC is one of the main elements of the SEA approach that Garner has released. Users can manage their applications, as well as monitor and improve all the security that they need.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10.