NetScaler Reviews

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.

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.

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.

SSL offloading, load balancing, HTTP analysis and manipulation (HTTP rewrites, inserts, redirects) for web applications. Load balancing other ERP applications and Exchange.

We have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions.  Some of these apps are externally accessible. In our current network design, we were using a routable address for every external resource that we presented. Via the Content Switching, we are using one routable IP for various systems, preserving our number of allocated public addresses.

HTTP analysis and action. We have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions. Some of these custom apps are external and, via the Content Switching, we can use one IP and leverage various back-end web app servers.

For the most part, I don’t have complaints about the system and its solution. One of my prior gripes was that documentation and knowledge base articles were disjointed and/or were not complete. Citrix has done a great job over the last two and a half years of enhancing their support material.

I would give the product a nine out of 10. The product is solid and truly is a Swiss army knife. However, getting to use some of the advanced tools, even with the assistance of Citrix support, can be challenging.

Our primary use cases are for the different local LANs and for exchange, a local LAN SharePoint, a local LAN for web applications and for different RDP, remote desktop publishing solutions, a local LAN for intranet, web applications, internal web applications, etc. and for all command switching and full VPN gateway for Citrix and for apps and desktops. We deal with enterprise companies, so around 5,000 users. I'm the Senior Principal IT Consultant in our organization. 

Citrix is a complete solution for those looking for an all-in-one. It's all there, the NetScaler gateway, remote access, internet access, optimization, load balancing, you have Citrix desktop publishing and VDAs. You can create a complete solution with Citrix. That's a good thing. If you have to troubleshoot something there's no problem like you would have if you were working between different solutions. If you're dealing with different manufacturers, there's always a problem with troubleshooting - nobody wants to take responsibility.

The solution has too many bugs in the software and it's always difficult when you need to update. If you have bugs in one firmware and you fix them and then update, sometimes it doesn't work in the correct way. Even when there are new feature releases, the problems are not always solved. Instability is an issue. The product also offers a lot of features that are not necessary, you don't need them. 

Bug fixing is a problem in this solution and they should consider focusing on that in any future release. 

I've been using this solution for over 10 years. 

The solution is somewhat lacking in stability. 

Scalability of the solution is fine. 

Technical support could be better. Response is good but when I open a ticket at Citrix because I have a problem, it's not because I want to check a simple configuration task on a support line, I want a solution.

I worked for a long time with F5. I've only worked with Microsoft and Cisco solutions. We're currently checking other options for a new customer. 

Initial setup is straightforward, deployment time really depends on the environment of the customer. 

I think the price is okay. 

If anyone wants to implement this solution, it's important to be clear about your use case in order to grow with the product. Functionality always depends on the underlying networking. If there is trouble in the underlying networking, then you'll always have problems with NetScaler.

I would rate this product a three out of 10. 

Our primary use case is to provide security and ensure the viability of our services.

The services are almost 100% available to everybody. The solution is invisible for our clients, so by using it, nobody knows that anything is broken because we're hiding the service behind it. It works behind the scenes, in the background, and it keeps everything running smoothly.

The web application firewall which protects our services on the internet, and then of course services like our ability to provide high availability for the services we are offering are the most valuable features. 

The user interface could be more friendly. Some wizards and other documentation for administrators, as well as some use cases, helps us to understand the solution.

The solution is very stable. On the client side, we have several thousand users. In the company itself, I would say there are more than one hundred users.

The solution is very scalable.

Technical support is good.

No, we haven't been using any other solution.

For deployment, it depends on the maturity of the client. If it's the services that are going to be supported by the solution or if it's just a new one, but the number of services is very low, then the implementation would take a week. If you are implementing a major infrastructure project that will support lots of services, then it becomes complicated, so there's no idea really how long it would take.

For our company's size and complexity, I would say it's straightforward.

Most clients, rather rarely, have a dedicated person to maintain just that solution but almost anybody from the operational team can watch it, so I don't know how many people you would need for deployment and maintenance. I haven't done a headcount.

We provide the consultancy ourselves.

This is a type of product that, in terms of security, the moment you implement it, it has an ROI because it secures the home system in the sense that no data is lost. No secrets get out.

There are some add ons to the standard licensing that you can buy for the basic version. You can extend with some add ons, or you can buy the premium version, so it depends on what your clients need. They get the packet and then they can do the add ons.

We were looking at different options according to price. We looked at the F5. The Citrix pricing was good for what it offers.

It's always a really good idea to do a POC. There are companies that are not convinced as to why should they should use something, but a POC is a good way to show why. 

The quality of the service is higher, simply, and that's what you need. So that's why we are using the solution. Also, there are lots of securities that integrate with the solution, so it's good. You can very easily find a way for almost every customer to use it.

I would rate this solution as a 9 out of 10. The performance is very good. The price is also good. You get performance, and lots of features which are very flexible which give the opportunity to provide really advanced support and the quality of the services we are serving from the platform is high.