For our VDI setup, we have two types of Citrix Netscaler solutions: one for providing application and desktop services, and another for load balancing. We sometimes face challenges like virtual appliances becoming unregistered, but we usually resolve them through checklists. Overall, Netscaler works well for load balancing in our infrastructure.

Citrix Netscaler makes it easy to provide services to end users, offering better visibility into user sessions compared to VMware. However, instability in network or machine can cause headaches as it's hard to pinpoint issues. SSL offload feature enhances security posture by providing secure connectivity between end users and backend systems. We use additional Azure remote security solutions for comprehensive protection.

Improvements are needed to address the issue of machines becoming unregistered, ensuring stability for end users. Troubleshooting with Citrix support can be challenging, so clearer diagnostics would be beneficial. As for global server load balancing, it works well on-premises, depending on user volume and service stability. Overall, it's satisfactory for us.

We have been using Citrix NetScaler for the past four years.

The stability of Citrix Netscaler is rated at 7 out of 10. Approximately 2,000 to 2,015 users are currently using it, and we plan to increase usage.

The scalability is considered to be good, almost 8 out of 10.

Some aspects of deploying Citrix Netscaler are straightforward, while others require professional services due to complexity. Skilled manpower and previous deployment experience are crucial. Initially, deployment required around five to six technical experts, but internalization of administration processes made it easier for us.

We handled it internally, though it took time to finalize and analyze. We didn't use third-party integrators.

The return on investment for us with Citrix Netscaler is favorable. By centralizing user support and management, we save costs on user device procurement and resource allocation. This approach is more cost-effective compared to traditional methods.

After deployment, Citrix Netscaler shifted to a subscription-based license scheme for support, which is slightly more expensive.

I'd rate Citrix Netscaler around 7.5 out of 10. For remote connectivity, I highly recommend it for its ease of use. As for analytics and reporting, it helps in decision-making. The main area for improvement is stability, which could be better.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.