NetScaler Reviews

The primary use case is for troubleshooting how users are experiencing the Citrix environment.

The most valuable features are for the ADMs and the overall monitoring environment.

I would like to see the virtual and desktop license included in the pricing.

I have been working with Citrix ADM for a number of years.

I have found the scalability to be acceptable.

The initial setup was straightforward and simple. The installation took about an hour.

I did the installation in-house.

The pricing could be lower. The actual device itself is included in the license, so the fact that you have to license virtual machines on it is the price point that could be lower.

I would rate Citrix ADM an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Citrix ADC is primarily used for load balancing exchange and other internal IT systems.

It is simple for both IT specialists and customers. With other products, we cannot leave the customer untrained. We can leave the customer during the early stages using Citrix ADC.

The stability of Citrix ADC needs to be improved.

The technical support could be improved. They do not respond or assist customers in a timely manner.

I have been working with Citrix ADC for approximately eight years.

It is typically deployed on-premises, but it is occasionally deployed on a hybrid cloud.

There have been many crashes since the last build.

Citrix ADC is easy to scale.

Technical support is different in every situation. In one case it went very well and quickly other cases it took longer.

Technical support could improve, but it is possible that my issue was complicated.

I am also working with F5, Kemp, Barracuda, Cisco, and NGINX.

Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix. In some cases, our customers do not have an engineer on staff who can support this device.

These customers have a large number of Linux engineers but don't have the money. We suggested using Loadbalancer.org and other open-source tools. Many customers are of different sizes and have different budgets.

The installation is simple for both manual configuration and automatic deployment.

Our company is partners with Citrix and F5 BIG-IP.

I would rate Citrix ADC an eight out of ten.

My clients use it for load balancing. 

The tool needs to add a feature where we can access the network policy access manager. 

We are a distributor of Citrix NetScaler for nine years. 

You need to just upload the installation script. The deployment time ranges from minutes to days. 

I would rate the tool a nine out of ten. 

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.

We use Citrix Web APP API Protection as a Firewall solution. Many ransomware attacks are happening and it is important to protect your entire data center. 

Citrix Web App API Protection allows you to enable a blocking mode. The hackers who choose to upload any unwanted data on your application, Citrix Web App will date it. A notification will be sent to you and your administrator, and that notification will include the IP address that is trying to upload some unwanted data to your application. Now you can identify and can block it, or you can block that application from that particular space in a particular country. 

We blocked that application for particular countries. We send the report to the government and they checked everything. And after a few months, we reviewed the policy.

Citrix Web App and API Protection could improve in the area of licensing.
Some customers have an enterprise license and some customers have an advanced license.  If you have an enterprise and advanced license, the Web Application Server, will not work. If you want to upgrade or if you want to use that Web Application Firewall, you have to have a premium license. I think they should enable the feature for an advanced license because small customers, cannot buy the premium license, which is a little bit expensive for them.

I have been working with Citrix Web App and API Protection for the past three years. 

The stability of the Citrix Web App and API Protection is excellent.

The scalability is not a problem.

Technical support is good when you are not able to find the Citrix documentation. They have a good resource for the Web Application Firewall. 

Positive

Citrix Web App and API Protection are definitely worth the money. You are protecting your entire application as well as your data center. If you are investing in your Web Application Firewall and API Protection, it's worth it.

The setup is very easy. The only thing is you need to understand the backend application functionality. Whether it's IES based, or whether it is some other vendors and what kind of database and authentication method they are using. This kind of information you should know before implementing the Citrix Web App and API Protection.

When talking about pricing and licensing, Citrix Web App and API Protection are in the middle.

I would rate Citrix Web App and API Protection an eight 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. 

We use it for load balancing.

The load balancing feature and the fact that you can do context switching in the WAF are the most valuable. We majorly use it for load balancing, but we also use it for context switching in the WAF. It is also robust and very easy to work with and manage.

They can improve the scalability and the multi-tenancy feature. 

We recently tried to configure an authentication, and we ran into some issues while using the web-based GUI. It was very slow when you log in with your credentials in the web-based GUI. Each time we clicked on the menu, it tried to do the authentication. It works properly in the console. 

I have been working with Citrix ADC for six years.

Its scalability is not good enough. We can't scale the model that we have to the one that is used for multi-tenancy. We need mobile multi-tenancy. Scalability is a big requirement for us. That's why we are looking at a different model.

Their technical support has been okay. It is fine, but it can be improved.

I have used an F5 solution. In F5, you have to do a lot of coding and scripting to be able to achieve certain things. Citrix is very straightforward because of the infrastructure that we run. It is very easy to spin up services. F5 is not straightforward.

I wouldn't say that it was tedious. It was pretty much straightforward for us.

We had a vendor who was experienced in deploying this solution. After the POC, it was easy for us to deploy this solution. We have less than 20 engineers to maintain this solution.

We get value for money. Its price is fair. I don't think it is overpriced. 

I would recommend this solution. It is cloud-ready. It can be deployed on the cloud as well as on-premises. 

I would rate Citrix ADC an eight out of ten. There are some flaws that need to be corrected.

We use the NetScaler ADC in three primary use cases. The first is to provide load balancing services for our internal applications. The second is for Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) to provide data center resiliency and failover of our externally accessible services, as well as proximity-based access. The third is for the Unified Gateway to securely provide external access to some of our key applications. We deploy VPX appliances running in our VMware environment.

The GSLB feature allows us to move services between data centers. We can do this in either a planned or unplanned manner. We have experienced service provider outages at our primary data center and GSLB will kick in to automatically modify DNS records to point to a secondary data center (active/passive). We also make use of GeoIP information to point clients to the closest data center for accessing applications.

The features I find most useful are 

• Load Balancing
• GSLB
• Unified Gateway.

I love being able to terminate connections to the boxes and look at all of the packet headers to determine which way I want to send the traffic next. GSLB provides amazing ability to do active/active or active/passive deployment of services. Unified Gateway allows me to provide secure external access to applications for suppliers and customers while requiring Multi-Factor Authentication.

The main areas for improvement would be around documentation and support. If a feature can be used in two or three ways, show that feature being used in all of those ways. Documentation seems to only cover the primary use case and leaves you to either run through trial and error or consult the user community. In terms of support, I have never actually had them solve any of my issues. I have always solved them myself and then provided the resolution to support.

I would rate the NetScaler a nine out of 10. It is a fantastic platform to work with and the features/functionality are top-notch. The only ding would be for the documentation, but the user community is fantastic.