NetScaler Reviews

We are a solution provider and when we need to implement application delivery control then Citrix ADC is one of the products that we suggest to our clients.

Manageability and visibility are good.

The interface needs to be improved because the competition is coming up with ones that are more eye-catching, straightforward, and sophisticated.

I have been working with Citrix for three years.

We are very happy with its stability.

We have no issues with scalability.

Currently, our customers for Citrix ADC are large-sized organizations.

I would rate the technical support a seven out of ten. They are okay. When they are investigating a problem then they need a lot of information, and there is a lot of back and forth.

The situation is the same with most of the big vendors.

We also deal with Fortinet FortiADC, and one of our clients recently had to switch to Fortinet because of a management decision. Importantly, however, they were still happy with Citrix.

The complexity of the initial setup and length of time for deployment depends on the customer that we're dealing with. If it's a ministry or government then it's going to take a long time. These deployments might take a month to complete. If it's a small or medium-sized customer then it might be between one and three days, and you're finished.

This product is more expensive than some of the competitors.

In the future, we are hoping to provide more cloud-based solutions. However, at this time, there is not enough maturity, and as such, corporations and government offices want on-premises solutions.

Citrix ADC is a product that I can recommend, without any doubt or hesitation.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I work as a senior sales engineer and business developer manager and we distribute the Citrix NetScaler AppFirewall. My job is in presales and I'm also a distributor, assisting the company partners.

Our customers are generally enterprise and public companies and our primary use of the product is for security and work balancing applications. Implementation of the product assists with all the applications and the customer's communication requirements. NetScaler can do a lot of things. We make a point of always using the latest version of the product.

I think that the work balancing applications are the most valuable feature. The licensing model that Citrix has implemented is very good. It's a pay-by-use system. 

The product could be improved by making it easier to use and easier to implement. We've had some difficult problems with that. 

An additional feature they could include more of a firewall, as you would find with Checkpoint, Fortinet or Palo Alto firewalls, which all have specific features for security. It would be good if they could include some kind of technical analysis in the next version but I don't know that is part of the Citrix strategy. 

The Citrix technical support is very good and the support from the company sales engineer is very good too. 

The initial setup can be problematic. The length of time it takes to implement really depends on the project. It normally takes around two weeks.

Our company carries out the implementation, the integration of the solution on the customer's infrastructure. In Portugal, we have a lot of enterprise and public sector implementations and a lot of different products available for mounting infrastructure. Sometimes the older implementations and on-prem implementations haven't been done properly and we need to manage this for the customer and for the implementers. You need to know very well what the customer has in order to implement the solution. 

The deployment model depends on the customer and normally it's carried out by the customer, because NetScaler in Portugal, where I am, isn't well known so we do a proof of concept first for a couple of months and then after the installation, configuration and the customer approves the product, then the department delivers it. 

There are some security problems, there's are DOS problems, different kinds of attacks. Another one is for load balancing the charge of the application because NetScaler is a very good solution to load balance the load off the application itself, from Citrix or from another solution. These are the best cases, security and load balancing.

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

We used it to manage a data center hosting environment and had more than 250 HA pairs of Citrix NetScalers (both physical and virtual) to maintain/manage customer environments. Each environment was different, each was a customer-dedicated environment.

This was a standard load-balancing solution provided to our customers. They didn't have many complaints about the way their traffic was being managed. We were able to handle specific requirements for persistence/stickiness.

Content Switching since it provides flexibility for routing traffic as desired to designated real servers. It also provides good geo capabilities through its GSLB feature.

Development team's response time could be better.

No major issues with stability.

Scalability is good with the virtual appliance, where you can easily scale using the appropriate license and match up with the appropriate virtual machine.

We had a mix of makes/models, as we supported a large customer base, such as F5, Cisco CSS. We have never had a case where we had to switch NetScaler out for another make.

Initial setup is straightforward if you know basic networking concepts. It doesn't take a lot of reading to set one up.

I would rate NetScaler as a seven out of 10 for good technical support on routine issues, but any issues that needed the development team's involvement took a long time.

If you don't have very specific requirements such as the ASM that F5 offers, this would do almost all tasks as far as load-balancing is concerned (geo load-balancing as well).

We use Citrix NetScaler for policy URLs for web applications and RDP for Windows servers.

Reducing the content searching to publishing your web application, the OTP for two-factor authentication is the most valuable feature of NetScaler.

I wanted to use most features of NetScale, like the Web Application Firewall, but I need to learn how to use it. When we want to use OTP for two-factor authentication, it first appears on the authentication page where we can put the credentials. Then, we are directed to the application page and type the credentials again. But we want to use the OTP and access the web application without typing the credentials again. Typically, if we have an issue in the configuration and ask for a support request, that support doesn't help. They only talked about new implementations and charged me for it.

The customers needed help but did not find the web useful for the tool.

The technical support could be better. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed. And most of the time, I finished fixing the problem by looking on the internet or by finding documents about the problem on Google.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler for seven years.

It is a stable solution. It crashed only once, four years ago. We're using the DSLD configuration with two load balancers, two carriers, and two ISPs.

The technical support is bad. Whenever I contacted support, I rarely got the solution that we needed.

I rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

Previously, I used Microsoft TMG but then switched to NetScaler since it is a better solution.

The initial setup was complex initially. The first time it took about six months to be deployed. But it's straightforward now and takes only a couple of hours. Around four to five people were needed to complete the deployment.

It was implemented through an in-house team.

There is a return on investment using the solution.

The solution is undoubtedly very good, but it is expensive.

My experience with the support is not good. Owing to its poor technical support, I rate the solution seven out of ten.

The main use of Citrix NetScaler was for application integration. My clients wanted their applications to be managed through Citrix NetScaler.

The most valuable feature of  Citrix NetScaler was the seamless integration. Additionally, the UI is good.

Citrix NetScaler has been recently acquired by another company and the support has been negatively impacted, the solution is at its end of life. The support for the solution could improve. The sales team needs to be improved.

I have used Citrix NetScaler within the last 12 months.

Citrix NetScaler is stable and robust.

Citrix NetScaler is scalable but could improve.

I have three to four customers.

I rate the scalability of Citrix NetScaler a seven out of ten.

The video technical support from Citrix NetScaler was satisfactory.

The initial setup of Citrix NetScaler is straightforward. The process is easier than competitors. The solution took us approximately 20 days to deploy because we had many applications that needed to be scheduled.

The requirement was to provide load balancing of multiple applications and publish all the applications behind Citrix NetScaler.

The license for Citrix NetScaler is on an annual basis and it is reasonably priced.

I would not recommend this solution to others.

I rate Citrix NetScaler an eight out of ten.

This solution acts as my web server, web application server, firewall, and load balancer. I also use it for IPSec 4 to IPSec 6 conversion.

The most valuable feature is load balancing. This solution will do both global and local load balancing.

The WAF features are very helpful.

The WAF component needs to be simplified so that it is easier to use.

In the next release, I would like to see more firewall policy support.

I have been using Citrix NetScaler VPX for about five years.

There are a few bugs here and there, but technical support has been able to assist with them.

This solution is easy to scale if we have up to ten servers, but much higher and we need to use a different level of license. It is a little bit expensive.

We have approximately 2,000 users.

I am quite satisfied with the technical support.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I installed this solution with the help of my own team.

Our licensing fees including technical support are approximately $3,500 USD.

We evaluated a solution by F5, but we found it to be a little complex and we didn't proceed with it.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that it works best for small-scale industry. I would recommend this for a small business, but not for larger organizations. It works quite well for 1,000 or 2,000 users, but I would not recommend more than that.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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