NetScaler Reviews

From a NetScaler perspective, in terms of LTM, not GSLB, NetScasler has performed very well. In comparison to F5, it holds its own.

For some of my deployments, NetScaler has been strictly a replacement to get something new in. It was cheaper than F5. We took a chance on it. The return on investment is the fact that we spent less money on it. It does do its job and it holds well against F5.

I can turn on features without actually owning a license. I can test them out, I can use them for a while, and then I can be licensed up. That's awesome. I don't have to have a license immediately before I can start to deploy things rapidly, rapid deployment is a plus.

When I compare it to F5 from a hardware or software perspective, they both have their glitches. From a software perspective, either one is not without code bugs.

From an SDX perspective, having the ability to spin up a VPX, the way we spin up our regular features, quickly and have a 60-day trial while we spin up VPXs will give us the opportunity to do more proof of concept work quickly without having to buy the license and download the VPX. A feature like this would be helpful. 

I would also like to have video tutorials so that when you click the help link, you have the option to go to the Citrix forum and get information and help from other people and other users. Something that points you out to a tutorial video link that is a general overview. 

I liked the fact that is NetScaler out-of-the-box is intuitive. You can catch on fairly quickly. Especially when you're doing an advanced alert. You cannot do a re-direct quickly without going through some documentation and if nobody's done it before, they don't know what you're talking about. That is when a help link would be useful that could direct you to the right tutorial video and then it could point you directly after that video to further direction and explanation. Straight to the meat of things. Something like a quick video tip tutorial would be great. Whereas if you're an F5 customer, you don't get something like this and you do have DevCentral that you can go to get information, but it requires you to read through many documents and comb through trying to configure something that is complex. They should deliver the information quickly to end users to make it even faster and more efficient to deliver our own applications and services to customers.

Video files can be large, they don't necessarily have to be on the box itself, but even through a link that quickly goes to their website or YouTube, whatever platform, could work. 

I would like to see them make it easier to do some of the more complex things. For example, a web re-direct requires two pieces to it. You have two ports and when people want to go to a web page, they just type in the webpage that on the backend will redirect them to a secure link. The initial setup of that is cumbersome because you have to do it twice. There are things that can be replicated. The IP address, for example, is the same. This change would go a long way. Don't make me do it twice and don't make me have to read tons of documentation to figure out how to do it. Ease of configuration for some of the more complex processes would be a good improvement. 

It has high stability. I deployed these in hospitals where lives matter. The contention was whether or not to go with F5 because it's the leader in the marketplace and they have 70% of the market shares. Even though NetScaler is big, it still doesn't hold the fair market share. NetScaler is the underdog but it is very stable. I've seen it in hospital environments where lives matter, it's held its own, it does what it says it's going to do and it does it well. It's certainly a top contender, if not an equal contender with its counterpart, F5. 

Scalability is very impressive. The way it works is that you can collapse everything on to a couple of platforms, small, medium, and large. The small one is obviously an initial buy-in. The mid one is fairly powerful and is bigger than an 8920. You are limited on the hardware. You get 64 and you get 32 out of the box, which is what you paid for but you can license up the 64. On the other platform, you can start off at 32 with the initial buy-in and then license up from there for a max of around 256 gig. The way they have it is that you are locked in from a hardware perspective.

Their technical support is decent. It could use some improvement. Help desks and technical support are good but you can tell that there's been turnover. We'll have complex issues that we're trying to work through and we would like somebody who's more experienced and not somebody who had just gone through training. Employee retention on the help desk would go a long way. 

NetScaler does the same thing as an F5 and it's cheaper.

There was some trepidation regarding the initial setup because it's new equipment and nobody has had training for it. We were able to figure it out and stand it up. It took some reading and some calls to tech support, but they were helpful when we were first setting it up.

There are the regular license costs and you also have to pay for licenses if you want more DPXs or whatever. A standard DPX is fairly cheap. It's around $7,000. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten because nobody is a ten. I would give it a nine if it was a little easier to pick up. Out of the box it's easy. Anybody who's an engineer can usually pick it up or if they've had previous load balancing experience, it's easy. Obviously, not everybody has that kind of experience. 

Not many of our customers use the solution's web application firewall. We use the solution's IP Reputation and bot protection features. We use the solution mostly as Citrix and Gateway ICA proxy and load balancing. There are a lot of changes with the solution, but Citrix NetScaler has quite a comprehensive portfolio of training courses.

The licensing model and technical support of the solution could be improved. The exchange rate with the local currency contributes a lot to why some of our customers are looking at alternatives.

I have been working with Citrix NetScaler since it first came onto the market. I have been using the solution before the Gateway feature was a part of NetScaler, and it was a stand-alone product. I have been using the solution since Citrix acquired the product.

Citrix NetScaler is a scalable solution.

Citrix NetScaler has many features. The solution's basic features, like load balancing and Gateway, are pretty easy to use. It becomes complicated very, very quickly in large environments because it has many features. I would recommend the solution to other users.

There are much cheaper alternatives if you just need the solution for basic load balancing. There are no alternatives to Citrix NetScaler if you want to use it as a Gateway and access it from the public network. Integrating Citrix NetScaler with the existing infrastructure and applications is pretty straightforward once you get the hang of things.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use Citrix NetScaler as a gateway to provide secure access to virtualized desktops and applications.

Citrix NetScaler offers robust security features, including SmartAccess and customizable policies, making it a reliable choice for safeguarding user data. The seamless integration with Citrix tools enhances both performance and security, creating a powerful combination for optimal IT environments.

There is room for improvement regarding the pricing policy for Citrix offices. In the past, the gateway was cost-effective, but there has been a shift, and the current pricing seems too high.

I have been working with Citrix NetScaler for many years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as an eight out of ten.

Tech support for NetScaler can be frustrating. When opening a case, I often spend much time with first-level support, who sometimes lack programming knowledge. The process involves repeating details when the case is escalated to an engineer which causes delays. Overall, I would rate the support as a three out of ten.

Neutral

Before using Citrix NetScaler, I had experience with similar products. I recall working with Citrix Gateway for server access, but it involved a server running an application on a Windows server. I have also dabbled a bit with other vendors like F5 for feature integration. However, integrating with Citrix has been challenging as they are not very open to external integrations.

The solution is quite expensive. Regular security audits reveal frequent vulnerabilities, requiring monthly patches.

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

We have published our applications via Citrix and then given access to the business users to access those specific applications via Citrix. We have many applications where multiple users need access - whether it's an EVS or a CRM, all these have been published to Citrix. We also use the solution for the ADC. ADC is a front end, wherein I get queries, and we'll get all the requests from internal and external users as well.

The solution is easy to use. It's very easy to configure. The solution is not very difficult.

Performance-wise it's okay. The solution is stable. 

The solution is easy to set up and the deployment process is quite fast.

The solution could be more secure. 

I've used the solution for four or maybe five years.

The solution is quite stable and the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The stability is good.

We have about 3,000 users on this solution. The product can scale. 

We are in constant touch with Citrix support. We get a good resolution from them. I'd say that we are quite satisfied with the level of support they provide. 

I also worked with F5. We used it for a couple of years.

The setup process is not overly complex or difficult. The installation should not take more than three to five hours so long as you have the right information on hand. 

Since the solution is straightforward and stable, we only need three or four engineers to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We handled the installation ourselves. We did not need outside help from consultants or integrators. We're capable of handling everything in-house.

There is a licensing fee, and we pay it once a year.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been very happy with its capabilities.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

Our primary use case is the hosting and delivering of web applications.

The product has helped us a lot with load balancing because we had limited experience with it.

The most valuable feature is the management and application delivery for Layer 7 traffic.

At the current time, the solution is not missing any features that I would like to have implemented.

This is a stable product that we have used since 2014.

This solution is scalable, and the sizing is defined by the amount of traffic. Our first box supports up to five hundred megabits of traffic, whereas our second box supports traffic of five gigabits. We will consider making use of this solution in any project going forward.

We have a contract with the re-seller, who has good expertise. If they cannot fix the issue then they escalate it to Citrix, where the tickets are usually solved. Sometimes this takes a little longer because of the multilevel ticket priority. Ideally, it should be possible for the re-seller to assign it directly to level three.

Prior to this, we used the Cisco ACE solution until the product was discontinued.

The initial setup was a little complex. We needed to choose the right partner to assist us with setup and implementation.

We contracted our re-seller to help with installation and setup. The deployment took approximately one month.

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

We used Cisco ACE, and they were the ones who recommended that we switch to this solution. We took their advice and we are pleased with it.

Customers need to look to the future and purchase the right model for their necessities. A new license can be purchased, rather than additional boxes.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

We used it mainly for GSLB (Global Server Load Balancing). It was the intelligent DNS service.

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.

Citrix should offer a demo or free-trial version of NetScaler. Several other vendors do, but Citrix does not.

Pricing should also be more readily available.

We deployed Citrix NetScaler in 2018, and I've worked with it for four years.

In the four years I was working on it, we didn't have a single incident. There were no crashes or abnormal behavior. We found it to be very stable.

We didn't have any issues with scalability.

I've contacted technical support once, and their response was timely. There were no issues.

I found the initial setup to be very easy.

Citrix NetScaler's pricing is slightly above average but not overly expensive. I would consider F5 BIG IP to be the most expensive, Citrix NetScaler to be the second most expensive, and then Kemp Load Balancer to be the third.

I am really happy with Citrix NetScaler in terms of the stability and user-friendliness of the user interface. It's easy to set up as well, and I'd rate it at nine out of ten.

There are two major verticals for Citrix: VDI and NetScaler. For NetScaler, our major use cases are database load balancing, PowerVPN VPN access gateway, WAF (Web Application Firewall), and content switching. But most of them are for load balancing, access gateway, and VPN for NetScaler.

And for VDI, the major use cases are definitely securing the data and centralizing the entire infrastructure to the data center. Another major use case is publishing in-house applications for end-users who are working from home or from remote locations.

Our organization doesn't use it because we're very small. However, we have deployed the service for more than 10,000 users. Our smallest customer had 25 users, and the biggest customer had over 10,000 users.

We have eight people in the maintenance team for Citrix NetScaler, plus 24/7 customer support for day-to-day issues. They are managing multiple customers. Their expertise is at the level of RL1, three at RL2, one at L3, and one at L4.

For VDI, centralization, data protection, and data management are the most important features. As for NetScaler, its key features include a firewall, GSLB, load balancing, and an actual gateway. These are the four tiers of NetScalers.

Pricing is one area for improvement. It's on the higher side because NetScaler is a premium product used for over 70% of internet traffic worldwide. However, price is not the only concern. Manageability and adaptability can also be challenging for end customers, who may require the assistance of experts like us to deploy and manage the product effectively. Although this is good for us as partners, it can limit the product's appeal to customers who prioritize ease of use.

Moreover, having some GUI-based tools for log management and troubleshooting would be helpful and make it easier for customers to manage and troubleshoot their databases.

For the future release of Citrix NetScaler, I would like to see better pricing, as well as improved manageability and log management features.

Another thing is if a problem occurs, we have to rely on the central support system. We need to collect the log and send it back to support for analysis, and then Citrix support will provide the solution. It would be much easier to troubleshoot if something is handy, such as a web portal or a common platform where customers can upload logs and resolve some of the issues automatically.

I have been working with Citrix for over twelve or fifteen years, so I know everything about Citrix. We are using the latest update of this product.

It is a rock-solid solution, and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Previously, their support was great, especially two years ago. But these days, I'm seeing lots of slowness in providing solutions. The L1 support team is not ready, or the L2 team has a lot of work and is overburdened.

Therefore, sometimes they are very good and sometimes slow in responding, resulting in slow solution delivery.

Neutral

The deployment process is quite complex because it's a premium or tier-one product. It requires great knowledge and experience to make it easier. If you don't have the necessary knowledge and experience, you may struggle.

Moreover, the deployment process depends on the customer's requirements and priorities. If the customer is focusing on multiple options or use cases, it may take seven to ten days. But if it's a straightforward installation with only one solution, then two or three days is more than enough.

We are using both on-premises and cloud-based versions.

We have a good team of ten people in India, and we are expanding our partnerships all over the world. We have even received orders from the USA. We are focusing more and more on the interaction market and are not looking to hire any consultants or other sources. Our company is the SI (system Integrator) for the product.

It's a good investment tool. If your own organization or any other organization invests in this product, it will be useful for their product line. This product is robust and reliable, which helps customers a lot.

The cost of the product depends on the customer's requirements, so there is no fixed price. There are multiple licensing models. There are no additional costs for using this product. It comes with a support bundle, and the licensing is subscription-based. It means that you have to pay on a yearly basis.

Citrix can be quite expensive, and it can be challenging to qualify or close leads for 50 users or less than 100 users. Therefore, we are considering evaluating multiple products in parallel and finalizing one product we can pitch in our product line.

I would recommend using Citrix. Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten because every product has room for improvement. If I rated it a nine, it means there's almost no room for improvement, which is not entirely true. So, eight is a fair rating.

There's a very powerful content switching capability, load balancing capability, and SSL offloading, layer-to-firewall capabilities, routine capabilities, policies, and rewrite policy capabilities. So there are a lot of capabilities in this solution.

The most valuable feature is SSL offloading.

The solution can improve their support and send tickets directly to a Citrix ADC engineer in order to avoid having to escalate each support call.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable.

I think that the solution needs to be handled by a team of Citrix ADC engineers, not just a normal support desk. Every single time you log a support call, it has to be escalated anyway, so why not just give us direct access to the Citrix ADC engineers?

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward with some training. You can get the solution up and running out of the box, but training does help. Deployment can be completed in three days if you have all the bits and pieces in place. We use three technical engineers for deployment.

The deployment was completed in-house.

You can do CapEx and then a yearly monthly fee, or you can do a subscription model, whether that's one month, month-to-month, or three-year subscription model. I give the solution an eight out of ten for pricing.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We currently have 40 - 45 people using the solution.

I recommend using an integrator that knows what they're doing. You need to validate the integrator's capabilities.

I think it's a really, really solid, well-run, nice solution.