We used Citrix NetScaler for load balancing in our application, where our users connect via the portal. This portal is load-balanced via a ServiceNet NetScaler. Additionally, our core banking application also runs on this infrastructure.

Citrix NetScaler has its capabilities and benefits. From a security standpoint, It is a comprehensive solution in a single box. We also have additional features such as gateway and global service load balancing. Furthermore, there's a provision for expanding data capacity.

In the latest version of Citrix NetScaler, there are specific improvements in the appliances, particularly in the management interfaces, which were not available in previous versions. If one device or switch fails, the failover to another device is not seamless which is painful. There needs some changes in their subscription-based model.

I've been using Citrix NetScaler for over four years. In 2020, we purchased two NetScalers for our Citrix solution. It's effective in load balancing. We always stay updated on critical vulnerability updates.

More than 5000+ users are using this solution.

We purchase support every year, making it more convenient. We have dedicated support and assistance with the subscription, ensuring stability.

The initial setup is neither difficult nor straightforward, but some products have their challenges, but it's a good product.

Deployment depends on the requirement. After complete connectivity and power on, it will have some configuration requirements.

Local vendors are also available for the solution's deployment.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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.

Citrix Web App serves as a valuable solution for enhancing security in IT, particularly within API environments. This aspect is crucial for ensuring security.

I prefer this solution because of its user-friendly interface. I find it simple and close to what I am currently using, which is Citrix Fortiva Access for Multi-Factor Authentication. I appreciate the familiar user interface and troubleshooting tools it offers.

I am not an expert in this solution, but simplicity and user-friendly interfaces are crucial for me. I would appreciate advice from Citrix, particularly in the form of an interactive guide for API protection. It would be helpful if they could provide specific points and recommendations for cybersecurity, indicating areas that need attention or improvement. I find such interactive guidance valuable.

I have been using Citrix Web App for the past five years. 

I would rate it 9 out of 10.

I would rate the scalability 8 out of 10. 

I have interacted with them only once and they respond well.

Positive

I am familiar with Citrix, and I acknowledge that it is a good solution. Generally, our customers also prefer it. While I recognize other options as a good solution, personally, I have a preference for Citrix. It is easier for me to work with Citrix, and this preference is based on my experience.

I did not encounter any difficulties during the installation process. I don't recall the exact duration, but it might have taken around two hours in total.

There are ten individuals in our team in Turkey, including engineers and specialists.

In Turkey, everything is good, but it seems expensive for us due to the currency exchange. I don't have a specific rating scale, but if I had to rate the price, I would say it's around a six out of ten.

I would recommend it for other users and rate it 8 out of 10. 

We use it for load balancing, creating a gateway to the Internet, and establishing a remote VPN connection.

One of its most valuable features is fundamental load balancing, supporting both basic load balancing and database teams.

The stability is good but should be enhanced. Each time a vulnerability is identified or a new release with applicable security fixes is issued, we find ourselves obligated to perform firmware upgrades as part of the remediation process. There is room for improvement in the technical support aspect. Currently, the support team's responsiveness is lacking, and the technical personnel on calls often seem unfamiliar with the issues or inadequately trained.

We have been working with it for the last five years.

I would rate its stability capabilities nine out of ten.

It is very scalable. I would rate it nine out of ten. In the production environment, all users accessing the application have their traffic routed through the load balancer.

The support service would benefit from being more prompt and having a higher level of technical expertise.

Previously, I used physical devices for application-related control.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The overall deployment typically takes around one week. During the process, we replicate the existing configuration onto the NetScaler. We set up a virtual load balancing gateway, operating in one-arm mode, connected to a switch. In this setup, incoming requests reach the switch, which then directs them to the load balancer. The load balancer performs the necessary load balancing and forwards the requests to the switch. From there, based on the layer to condition, the switch routes the requests to the appropriate node.

Its value lies in the fact that we have observed these devices to be highly stable. There have been minimal to no new issues identified in the devices.

The firewall license is included by default, with no additional costs.

It is suitable for scenarios with minimal production traffic. However, in high-traffic situations, it is advisable to explore alternative solutions such as Wi-Fi or other options. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We provide the solution to customers on their premises. We use Citrix to provide their network infrastructure for their business solutions. We have an automated scenario implemented where we can deploy architectures with an automation script.

We have good customer support. And since we've been working on the solution for the last five years, it's intuitive to us, and we can provide new solutions, applications, and implementations.

One of the most glitchy things in NetScaler comes whenever they upgrade something. Their upgrades are not very backward compatible, and sometimes they mess up, and we'd have to speak to someone. Also, Citrix is limiting their support for the load balancer to their legacy customers only. They are not providing the services to new customers or clients. Citrix is changing its business model.

We also need more things on a DNS-based system. For some of the new DNS, the features that can be included would be good.

Moreover, the solution should be more user-friendly. If one implements it once, they will get all the dos and don'ts. But first-time users would not know. And the documentation has limits and gaps. First-time users need to go to the support team and get their expertise to get it done.

We have a setup that's been running for the past six years.

I rate the solution's stability a six-and-a-half out of ten. Sometimes, we face issues with upgrading time.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

Since we use quite a lot of electricity, we don't just scale up. We also scale down when we don't need it for cost-effectiveness. With scalability, we are not facing any issues, and the solution works quite well.

We have more than 2,500 individual customers daily. That is the smallest customer base we have on this solution.

I rate the initial setup a six-point five or seven out of ten because it was difficult. Because we have lots of experience already on this product, we understand how to work with it. But people purchasing it and trying to implement it for the first time would need support from the support team. If first-time users mandatorily need support, it's not user-friendly.

Because we have automatic implementations enabled, the solution takes half a day to deploy. But it will take longer for new users. If I were doing a POC, I would probably take three to four business days to deploy the solution.

The deployment process is all automated. We prepare our environment using Ansible scripts.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten since it is expensive. The pricing can be a problem for smaller businesses.

There is a separate cost grade for the kind of support you get.

I suggest everyone does their own POC because everyone has their requirements. They should do their research and see what fits better for them.

I rate Citrix Web App and API Protection a seven-and-a-half out of ten.

I like the solution's simplicity compared to Citrix's on-prem solutions. Citrix is not an easy technology, but they tend to make things very simple now.

The solution's pricing is a big concern and should be improved.

I prefer not to contact the solution's technical support. They will not resolve the problem, and we will have to do it ourselves.

Neutral

I rate Citrix Web App and API Protection a six out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight or nine out of ten.

I have been working with Citrix for more than eight years. I recently discovered Parallels RAS, which is better than Citrix in terms of cost and simplicity. Unlike Citrix, Parallels RAS is an all-in-one solution, and it's easy to deploy.

Overall, I rate Citrix Web App and API Protection a seven out of ten.

We use the product for load balancing and as a reverse proxy solution.

The tool's pricing is a pain point since we have many cheaper alternatives. 

I have been working with the solution for five years. 

I rate Citrix ADM's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. 

Citrix ADM has a good tech support. 

Neutral

I rate the solution's deployment an eight out of ten, and was straightforward. It was completed in three weeks. 

Our customers are mostly medium enterprises. 

I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I rate Citrix ADM a seven 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. 

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 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.