NetScaler Reviews

It is mainly used for virtual desktop delivery for remote access. We are also using it for load balancing and SSL VPN.

The load balancing and VPN features are most valuable. AAA authentication is also valuable. 

They have specific integration with the product line for application virtualization and desktop virtualization.

Its GUI should be improved. Its CLI is powerful, but GUI needs more features.

I have been using this solution for almost eight years.

It is stable.

They have the software bundle licenses. If you want to add more users, capacity, or throughput on the bandwidth, you can add licenses, and it'll get upgraded.

They also have scalability options with virtualization, and you can use those options as well. Normally, we decide on a particular model depending on the number of users and the use case.

They have different models. An entry-level model supports up to 5,000 users. A mid-range model can support up to 10,000 users, and a high-end model can support up to 40,000 users in the box in HA configuration.

I've contacted them many times. In case of a problem or error, you can raise a support ticket online. Normally, we upload the log. After they analyze the log, they are able to identify the root cause and provide support. In case of a severe issue, they also do a remote session to analyze the issue. They are very helpful.

It is pretty easy and straightforward. A new setup takes maybe a couple of hours.

I would recommend it depending on the use case. If you have a use case for an application controller for load balancing, web application firewall, or virtual infrastructure, you can straight away go for this solution.

I would rate Citrix ADC a nine out of 10.

We are just publishing applications. We have some clients who need access to these. So, we're hosting the applications for clients. We're also publishing VDIs and using it for processing VDIs.

Citrix Director has been great. It gives us one pane of glass to be able to monitor what's going on with the user sessions as well as to keep on top of the virtual desktops, any servers that may be offline or behaving suspiciously, or any troublesome spots like disconnections. 

We also use Citrix Studio for maintaining the actual servers that are hosting these applications. We use it for delivery groups in case we need to modify delivery groups in regards to which groups have access to which applications. It has been very helpful.

We are looking for some in-depth monitoring and analytics and more information that Citrix Director doesn't provide. ControlUp has insights that not only give you an overview but also allow you to do some drill-down troubleshooting for what's going on in your environment. We are looking for some more analytical and monitoring data to be able to monitor the environment better, not only from an application standpoint but also from the standpoint of the infrastructure to everything it sits on. They can provide more data to the administrators about what's going on within the application. They can provide data not only on the application side but also about what the application sits on. They're making strides with Citrix Analytics in regards to that.

My team has been using it for at least four to five years, and I just joined this team.

It has been pretty stable. The only thing that we've ever experienced is when someone is installing a bad patch or something like that. That has usually been a user error. It wasn't the product; it was the person implementing the patch.

It is very scalable. That's another reason why our company went with Citrix. It is very scalable and versatile. If you are trying to provide to a group that doesn't necessarily need a full-fledged desktop, you can just publish out whatever application is needed. A lot of groups are very appreciative of that. A lot of groups just want to be able to get to the applications they need to do their work. They don't really want to be bogged down with a full-fledged desktop if they just need one application. Citrix gives you the capability to just do that.

You could publish it to many devices. It doesn't have to be a specific desktop. It could be a tablet as long as a person has access to the internet. You're publishing it into a portal where they can just get to that application from anywhere as long as they have maybe an RSA token, Duo, or some type of security authentication and their phone. We have users who are impressed by the fact that they can get to it. As long as they have their Citrix workspace client on their phone, they can get to wherever they need. It is very versatile in delivery.

Right now, we have about 5,000 to 6,000 onshore and offshore users. Our environment supports healthcare, so we need the ability to deliver to those users who may be working within a hospital. As long as they have an internet connection and a browser, they can access our applications. It has been a very valuable tool that allows us to present that outside our environment.

We've had to use them on occasions, and they've been very on point for the initial triaging as well as for the follow-ups. I would rate them an eight or nine out of ten. It was maybe after hours, and it took some time to get to the right engineering team for the issue. It wasn't like we were just waiting on them. It was just getting us over to the right team for a specific issue. After we actually got on the phone with an engineer, they've always been very helpful in getting the issue resolved.

It is pretty straightforward.

I would advise others to just go through and look at the requirements and the needs of the people you're supporting. I will always recommend doing a POC, just to make sure that the product that you're inquiring about or thinking about purchasing does what it says it does because you don't want to be oversold something and it under-delivers. I will always recommend doing some type of POC to test everything out. If it is in your budget, then I would say go with it.

It has improved the way our organization functions. I have been very impressed with the direction in which Citrix is going. I got introduced to Workspace last year, and I attended the virtual SYNERGY conference. It was very impressive to see so many upcoming things that Citrix is working on. I noticed that VMware also has its version of Workspace, so I guess that's the new hot terminology to use. The Citrix solution is called Workspace, and the VMware solution is called Workspace ONE.

I would rate Citrix ADC a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement for any application. That's why they have different versions or a series of applications.

We primarily use the solution for load balancing and SSL offloading. It's mostly for load balancing, however, occasionally we use it for the SSL offloading and content switching.

The load balancing on the solution is excellent.

The fact that you can do content switching is very useful.

The pricing is pretty good.

The solution is easy to work with and manage.

It's cloud-ready and we can manage it both on-premises and on the cloud if we need to.

The multi-tenancy isn't ideal.

The solution should be able to scale more effectively than it does.

Technical support could be improved upon.

Recently, we tried to configure AAA authentification and we ran into some issues using the web-based GUI. When you are on the console it works, however, when you're on the web-based version when you log in with your AAA credentials, it's very very slow. That is something that we're beginning to see and something they need to address.

We've been using the solution for over six years at this point.

The stability is okay. We haven't dealt with any bugs at all.

A big requirement for us is to be able to scale for multi-tenancy, and this solution doesn't really provide for that. We're looking into another model that might be able to help us handle this.

The technical support is okay. However, they could still improve their services.

I've worked with F5 and found it hard to work with and manage, in comparison to Citrix.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't say that it was tedious due to the fact that the vendor who we got to assist us already had experience in deployment. They made it pretty easy. After the POC it was simple to deploy into the production environment.

We have less than 20 engineers that are working with and maintaining the product.

Our vendor helped us deploy the solution. They made the process pretty efficient and we were satisfied with eh results.

The solution offers quite good value for money. For the amount you pay, you get a fairly robust product.

We're just customers.

I would recommend this solution to other organizations as it's quite easy to use. There's so much that you can do, compared to F5, for example. With F5, you have to do a lot of tweaking to be able to achieve certain things. 

With Citrix, due to the infrastructure, we run very very easily. We run on ECA infrastructure and it's a great thing. It's very very straightforward. With F5, it's not as good. 

That said, it has some flaws that need to be corrected.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it at an 8.

Our primary use case is for proxy firewalling. 

In South Africa, we're going through load-shedding. When our primary link goes down I can still get to my Cisco devices and the NetScaler devices on-prem because of the SDN solution. If the internet connection at one of the branches goes down, we can still route them, they still get internet based on the SDN solution through one of the other sites. They can carry on working.

We incorporated all three because of the fact that we have one central proxy server and everything's on an SDN, so we can get any device anywhere anytime.

Security could be improved because then I can get rid of my Cisco firewalls. If they improve the security then I could run my security, my proxy, my firewalling and my SDN solution on one device instead of having to have multiple devices.

We have 55,000 people around the country and we have plans to roll the solution out worldwide.

The initial setup was complex because we've got different applications so the firewalling needs to be done properly and then we actually do IP subnet changes at certain times. We decided to go to all sites. We did a subnet change on all sites and then we deployed NetScaler. We did the head office first and then we went site by site.

Deployment between nine sites around the country took about four weeks. 

We only require one person for maintenance. Deployment took three people. 

The standard licensing fees work in the way that you get one license with it for whatever you're going to be utilizing it for. We integrated the firewall, the proxy services, and the SDN.

We also looked at FortiGate and Palo Alto. 

The advice I would give somebody researching this solution is to do your research properly and see what's the best solution for the company and the company's needs before you make a decision. You can't just randomly pick a device. You have to do your investigations first. Put in proof of concepts, speak to your seniors. You must tell them what exactly is your company requirements and which device is going to suit those requirements the best.

I would rate it 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 basically use it for money transactions, important call centers, and cash centers.

Its flexibility, agility, and robustness are the most valuable. Its management and implementation are also quite easy.

Citrix ADC can be really complex. It isn't very simple like some other appliances that I've worked with. You need a lot of skill and experience to manage it. I'm not talking about a year or two. You need at least four years to understand it very well. It is not that easy to learn. They should make it a lot simpler for users to understand the management of it. They can also provide some additional training. The material they have on the site is not sufficient enough for you to understand how to manage it. Their training is expensive, and not everyone has the funds and experience for it.

Citrix isn't very popular around these parts of the world. So, it can use some more marketing, sales, enlightenment, and advertisement. These could bring more market for them. Basically, there are just a few companies that really go for Citrix. Most of the companies go for VMware because they marketed themselves more than Citrix. There isn't much difference between Citrix and VMware. VMware is a little more robust than Citrix. Citrix has focused more on desktops rather than server virtualization, and that's the advantage VMware has over Citrix.

Citrix also needs to educate and inform users about the infrastructure that is supported with a version. Currently, if the customers don't look at the datasheet, they might miss this important information.

I have been using this solution for four years.

If you don't go and search for information in the datasheet and confirm which infrastructure is compatible with Citrix, it might blow up in your face. Citrix needs to work on this. They need to educate more and put more data to inform that not all infrastructure can go with this version of Citrix. 

It is highly scalable. We have 1,000 users currently, and we have plans to increase its usage.

I am not sure if we have technical support from Citrix. If your version is out of date, you do not get any support from Citrix, even if you've been a loyal customer for a decade. That's a loophole, and there is no grace period for their licenses once they're expired. They should work on that and at least give you a grace period of 90 days or 60 days prior to renewing your licenses with them. We had some problems not long ago and needed their support, but because of the version we were running back then, they denied any support, and we ran into some productivity problems and service downtime as a whole.

For me, it is easy, but other people might see it as complex.

It is very pricey, but we get it. If you need the best, money shouldn't be a problem.

You need to understand the infrastructure first before delving into it. If you don't have proper knowledge about it, you might run into problems while managing it. Not everyone has the skill to manage Citrix ADC. So, I advise everyone to get proper training and education before implementing it. It is very important.

I would rate Citrix ADC a nine out of ten.

We're using NetScaler for compression and optimization features.

Most of the functions are user-friendly and great. We also have mobile features that are simple but effective.

There are some drawbacks, such as using EUG for certain configurations. It could definitely be improved. Moreover, compression features could be better since it uses too much CPU and is not very effective.

In terms of additional functionality, the capture feature could be improved to make it easier to use, and schedules could also be better for me.

I have been using this solution for eight years. 

There are nine users in our organization using this solution. It is a stable solution within this capacity. Sometimes we faced bugs, but in general, it hasn't affected the general usage.

If you use the latest version, it is quite a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability of NetScaler an eight out of ten. 

We've had poor experiences with customer support partners in the past two years. If some company changes, it's a bad thing. The customer support is not good for us. It is not helpful as well as have very slow response time. 

The initial setup is actually very simple.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would definitely recommend using the solution.

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.