NetScaler Reviews

I use Citrix NetScaler to secure and reliable access to our back-end applications hosted in our data center. With its robust features like SSL security, content switching, load balancing, and application firewalling, it streamlines traffic management and enhances overall performance while keeping our data safe from threats.

The most valuable feature for us is the application firewalling in Citrix NetScaler, ensuring only valid traffic enters our environment. Additionally, it provides insights into the origin and destination of traffic within our data center, giving us control and visibility over our network performance.

Citrix NetScaler is a robust product, but mastering it requires significant learning and training due to its complexity. While it could be easier to manage, it is like transitioning from driving a car to flying a plane – a different experience altogether. 

Additional features could include better integration with community-developed scripts and APIs, making it easier for users to access and utilize these resources. Streamlining the interface and ensuring standardization would enhance usability and provide smoother integration with third-party services.

I have been working with Citrix NetScaler for about 20 years.

I would rate Citrix stability at nine out of ten because it is solid, but many issues stem from neglecting regular maintenance. If you overlook upkeep like clearing disk space, even the best products can falter, but it is not the fault of Citrix NetScaler itself.

The scalability of Citrix NetScaler is impressive, ranging from small setups to handling gigabit-level traffic. It is designed for clustering and can sync data traffic across multiple interfaces, making it highly adaptable to varying needs. In our organization, we serve several large clients, with some deployments handling up to 7,000 users daily.

The technical support is very good.

Setting up Citrix NetScaler can vary from straightforward to complex, depending on the deployment requirements. For basic setups, it is easy, but for more intricate configurations involving clusters and firewall settings, it becomes complex and requires expertise. While there are ARM templates available for deployment, understanding your specific needs is crucial for achieving the desired outcomes.

Using Citrix NetScaler provides immense value to our organization. Its indispensable role is in facilitating remote access and managing various assets, whether on-premises, cloud, or hybrid.

Having a robust load balancer like Citrix NetScaler is essential for our infrastructure. While there are other options like F5 and Azure load balancers, NetScaler stands out with its comprehensive features beyond just basic traffic routing, offering advanced functionalities like security controls, content switching, and application firewalling.

Citrix NetScaler enhances our application delivery by intelligently directing traffic to healthy servers and services. It ensures that even if a server is up, but its services are down, traffic is rerouted to functioning servers, preventing downtime and ensuring a smooth user experience. With built-in probes, it continuously monitors the health of services, identifying issues and optimizing traffic flow accordingly.

The SSL upload feature in Citrix NetScaler has significantly improved our security by encrypting traffic and ensuring data integrity. Additionally, the global server load balancing capability allows us to efficiently host multiple services behind a single static IP address, streamlining deployment and reducing the need for multiple certificates and IP addresses.

The analytics and reporting capabilities of Citrix NetScaler have improved significantly in the past year.

For those considering Citrix NetScaler, my advice is to research its capabilities thoroughly to understand which features align with your needs. Start by experimenting with one feature at a time and learn as you go to maximize its potential for your organization.

Overall, I would rate Citrix NetScaler as a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for Layer 7 load balancing for our clients, as well as single sign-on functionality, and uploading the data from their applications.

The load balancing feature of this solution is very good.

We would like the licensing model for this product to be improved, as it isn't currently very transparent. There isn't a standard package available, and each extra feature creates an additional cost.

We have been working with this solution since 2009.

We have found this solution to be stable during our time working with it.

We have found this solution to be difficult to scale out due to the complexity of the licensing model.

The technical support for this solution is good, in our experience.

Positive

The initial setup for this solution is very easy, and will require one engineer for a cloud-based deployment, or two engineers for an on-premises setup.

However, the time the implementation will take is dependent on the size and complexity of the project. Full deployment can take from three days, up to a few months for the most complicated integration requirements.

The licenses for this product are payable as a yearly subscription, and carry a high price-point. The subscription scheme is quite complicated, and costs will increase with each additional feature that is required, outside of the basic setup.

Also, if clients wish to move from an on-premises setup to the cloud-based version of the solution, the licenses are not transferable.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My organization uses Citrix ADM mainly for optimization and content delivery so that the desktops and applications can be delivered to the users without compromising security.

When it comes to virtual machines, latency is the only concern we have. The most impressive thing about Citrix ADM is that we don't encounter latency.

Citrix ADM needs to improve its additional features and reduce the communication ports. It should be directly integrated with the hybrid cloud environment. Currently, we use Windows Connect Now. If Citrix ADM collaborates with Microsoft Azure, we can directly deploy from AWS or the Azure console.

I would like to add serverless computing to Citrix ADM. For example, if we separate Citrix Cloud Connector, the legacy environment is still required. We need different servers for Citrix hosts, VDA, Delivery Controller, and StoreFront.

All these components can be combined into a larger single server unit. So, instead of getting ten servers for the same configuration, we can get a single server for two or three configurations. Reducing the number of servers will definitely reduce the cost.

We need to buy or rent servers to use Citrix as a product. From a customer’s perspective, even if Citrix does not reduce its cost, these improvements can help us reduce our expenses.

I have been using Citrix ADM for the past five years.

Compared to Kubernetes and Docker, Citrix ADM’s stability is good. However, I do not think Citrix ADM will survive much longer in the market.

I believe that Citrix ADM is a scalable solution. We have around three lakh employees domestically; my whole organization runs on Citrix ADM. There might be more users in our global branches.

Citrix support is good. One issue I faced with the support was that the support personnel did things we already knew. It would be helpful if Citrix could provide some extended support.

The initial setup is neither easy nor difficult. There are a set of rules and regulations and a set of suites. The installation of each component in a suite depends on the specific requirements and the components used.

I don’t see it as a difficulty. It is just a process that we have to perform. As an administrator, it is very simple to deploy and make it available to the users, no matter the requirement.

Citrix ADM is worth its price since there are not many options available for us within our project.

Citrix ADM costs us approximately $5000 per month.

We have services on Citrix Cloud as well as the on-premise environment. I do not see any job vacancies or job postings related to Citrix ADM recently, as opposed to one or one and a half years ago.

There is an issue regarding the cost associated with Citrix ADM and the users who use it. The user experience and the content we are delivering make a huge difference. Serverless computing is already on the way. I do not see much future for Citrix ADM. Citrix might be deploying cloud connectors, but I don’t see much difference.

I would definitely suggest Citrix ADM to people. The end users are not much affected by Citrix ADM. My organization is in partnership with Citrix ADM. I rate Citrix ADM an eight out of ten.

We deploy it for enterprise customers and some schools that are located in Denmark.

The load balancing is one of the most valuable features. We have several load balancing solutions like F5 and Fortinet.

I will try to migrate all the tools to the cloud because there is more lab and more VPN scalability available in the cloud. It is not available on-premises.

I have been using Citrix for the past four years. 

Of course it is stable. We have had some errors, like authentication issues, although those are easy to fix.

It is scalable enough. 

We started with 100 users and now are up to 2,500.

We have contacted their technical support. They provided their contact details, the account manager details, so we contacted them frequently and as required. They are very good. 

We are also familiar with F5.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's deployed in our central location and four different other plants. It's not complex for those types of environments. Including the network setup, the entire deployment took 45 days. 

I did the deployment together with my team. The deployment required four advanced engineers. 

We also evaluated Fortinet but we found that it is not that good a solution in terms of it being user-friendly and it was not very scalable. Comparatively, FortiGate is a good option, and reading-wise I think it's good.

I would tell someone considering this solution to know your use cases and get good documentation. 

When we experienced an issue, we made documents and we can share those documents and share all the details to help provide others with solutions. 

I would rate it a six out of ten. 

We provide services to our customers related to Citrix ADC.

The reverse proxy for virtual apps and desktops, along with load balancing, stands out as the most valuable feature. The flexibility in configuration options is impressive.

I just hope they don't change the name again. It was challenging explaining to customers that it's no longer NetScaler but ADC, and now it's not just ADC but also the rebranding from NetScaler. When I first started working with NetScaler, it seemed a bit complex. However, with experience, I've come to appreciate its user-friendly nature, especially when you know your way around it.

I have been working with it for three years now.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

It offers exceptional scalability. I would rate it ten out of ten.

I've only reached out to tech support once, and they swiftly resolved my issue. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup eight out of ten.

For the specific use case that my customers primarily engage with, I would give the pricing a rating of seven out of ten. However, if you're exploring the full range of NetScaler's capabilities, my rating would drop to four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We are using the solution for SSL offloading and load balancing.

The configuration for the solution's web application firewall is complicated. It requires technical knowledge. They should improve the process.

We have been using the solution for almost 12 years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight. We have 8000 solution users in our organization.

The solution's technical support is good.

In comparison with Azure and Cisco products, Citrix is a stable solution.

The solution's initial setup process is easy.

The solution is expensive compared to Azure. We purchased its three-year license model.

The solution needs enhancement from a security standpoint. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We use it for web applications, firewalling, EDOS protection, load balancing, and content switching. There are quite a lot of use cases that we use it for. It just depends on what the client requires. It's a multi-purpose software.

It's a well-rounded, well-featured product that is quite flexible in terms of covering quite a lot of use cases depending on the client's environment.

It's quite a competitive solution if you compare it to others. It's one of the market leaders in terms of functionality and features.

It's a stable product.

The solution can scale.  

Technical support could be improved. 

I've used the solution for seven years or so. 

It's a stable product. I'd rate its reliability eight out of ten. There are few bugs, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is fine. I'd rate its ability to scale ten out of ten. 

We aren't fully satisfied with technical support at this time. We'd like them to have a faster response time. Sometimes those responding to requests aren't technical enough, and the case needs to be passed through to someone else. 

Neutral

We did not previously use a different solution. 

How long the solution takes to deploy depends on what features are deployed. The deployment of the VPN and general balancing stuff doesn't take too much time. However, if you are looking at web applications and/or firewalling, it can get a bit more complex. The implementation will take longer. 

I'd rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. There are some complex configurations, however, it isn't something that we generally can't handle ourselves. 

The initial setup is usually done by our team. We would usually reach out to the vendor for support in the case of a bug or something like that.

I'm not involved in licensing aspects of the solution and cannot speak to the exact cost of the product. 

There is only a licensing fee. There aren't any extra costs attached.

We did not previously evaluate other options. We use Citrix a lot. It's our bread and butter. 

We're Citrix partners. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

We have multiple implementations of the product, including on the cloud and on-premises. When we use the cloud version, we use Azure and AWS. 

I'd rate the product nine out of ten. 

The solution is used primarily for load balancing and content switching, but we also use it for VPN, SSL VPN, and ICA Proxy. One of the bigger use cases that comes up often is web application firewalling and security. There's a lot of growth in our clients' environments at the moment. There's also significant regulatory compliance required and we deploy ADC with multifactor authentication to have a layer of protection for our customer information. We are partners of Citrix and resellers of this solution. 

The web application firewalling component is probably the most powerful feature as it can identify attacks on the network at an application level which is quite important. There is also good functionality where we use IP reputation and geofencing to mitigate threats from the outside world.

Citrix can improve their quality assurance by ironing out security vulnerabilities before releasing upgrades. They are quite proactive in identifying vulnerabilities, but it would be helpful if they could identify them prior to release. The support on the ADCs isn't that great and there's a lot of work required with upgrading plant environments because of security vulnerabilities that come to light. I'd also like to see some improvement on the monitoring side. Things are better than they were but the interface can be a little cumbersome sometimes. It's not always easy to get the information that you're looking for.

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

Stability is pretty good. Our company has logged perhaps one or two calls for stability issues, but they have generally related to environment variables that are outside our control.

Scaling up or out is fairly straightforward. Based on the software license, we can unlock additional capacity, functionality and throughput purely by installing a higher-rated license. From an upgrade point of view, it's not a case of ripping and replacing hardware every so often, the solution is fairly robust in that sense.

Complexity of the initial setup depends on the use case. It can be fairly straightforward depending on what you're trying to achieve, but the more complex deployments are, of course, more complicated. Depending on the use case, deployment can take anywhere from a day to a couple of weeks. On the web application firewalling side, it can take some time, but standard ICA proxy, SSL, VPN, load balancing, and content switching, are fairly straightforward to get up and running quickly. We have 15 users in our company.

Licensing depends on your environment and the size and scale of the deployment. There are options to purchase a standard, advanced or premium license, each of which unlocks different feature sets and capabilities. We also have a throughput license that ties into that, whether it's 20, 100 or 200 megs. It really depends on the environment. If I look at competitors such as F5, the costs and functionalities we offer are the same but at a much-reduced cost.

Whether this is a suitable solution depends on what the client's trying to achieve, the type of applications they want to publish, and the security metrics they're looking at. We provide predominantly Citrix-based solutions so if there is a use case, we would definitely recommend Citrix, not only because of its functionality, but because that's our specialization. We implement the full stack of Citrix solutions.

Because of the functionality, scalability and stability of the solution as a whole, I rate ADC eight out of 10.