We compared F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Citrix NetScaler based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
The F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is praised for its efficient traffic distribution and excellent customer service, with users highlighting the product's positive return on investment. In contrast, Citrix NetScaler stands out for its robust load balancing capabilities, security features, and scalability. Users also appreciate the competitive pricing and responsiveness of the support team. Enhancements desired for F5 BIG-IP LTM include improved documentation and user interfaces, while Citrix NetScaler users seek improved scalability and compatibility with applications.
Features: F5 BIG-IP LTM excels in efficiently distributing traffic, managing load, enhancing application performance, and ensuring high availability. Citrix NetScaler stands out with robust load balancing, security features against DDoS attacks, secure remote access, and seamless scalability.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is described as easy and straightforward, without any complications. It offers flexible and customizable licensing options. Citrix NetScaler also has a straightforward and easy setup cost, with users mentioning its cost-effectiveness. It offers competitive and reasonable pricing and flexible licensing options., F5 BIG-IP LTM and Citrix NetScaler both offer favorable ROI according to user feedback. F5 LTM is valued for its contribution to business success, while Citrix NetScaler delivers positive outcomes and benefits for users.
Room for Improvement: The F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) could benefit from better documentation, more intuitive user interfaces, streamlined workflows, improved ease of use, more responsive customer support, and timely updates. In comparison, users of Citrix NetScaler desire improved scalability, more intuitive interfaces, enhanced documentation and support, and resolution of compatibility issues with certain applications.
Deployment and customer support: The user feedback for F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) indicates varying durations for establishing a new tech solution, with some users mentioning three months for deployment and an additional week for setup, while others mention a week for both. Citrix NetScaler users mention different timeframes for deployment and setup, emphasizing that both should be considered or that they may refer to the same period., The customer service for F5 BIG-IP LTM is highly commendable, with knowledgeable and responsive representatives. Users appreciate the prompt resolution of issues and professional support. Citrix NetScaler also provides satisfactory customer service with a helpful and responsive support team, offering effective solutions.
The summary above is based on 60 interviews we conducted recently with F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) and Citrix NetScaler users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Load Balancing and SSL offloading are key features."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the VDA Delivery, Gateway Fort, and the load balancing."
"The most valuable features of Citrix ADC are load balancing and application firewall."
"Scalability is great. One of the best features of NetScaler is that it can scale out."
"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."
"Manageability and visibility are good."
"The web application firewalling component is a powerful feature."
"The most valuable features are DNS, APM, and ASM. Additionally, it is easy to use and you have a lot of flexibility to use the solution within a network."
"We always use technical support and the team helps us very well. They're able to effectively find and fix issues and they respond very quickly."
"It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
"F5 BIG-IP is used with good applications and functions as an application firewall with additional features. We will not use any feature or any service unless there is a business case and there is a need for implementation."
"Great load balancing."
"Routing and load balancing are its most valuable features."
"I like that F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is a product that comes with valuable features, but what stands out from all features is load balancing."
"The product is very stable. We put a decent amount of stress on it given our load."
"Getting to use some of the advanced tools, even with the assistance of Citrix support, can be challenging."
"There are some drawbacks, such as using EUG for specific configurations. It could be improved."
"The GUI should be improved."
"There are certain features that are very useful and Citrix makes you pay a bit more for them."
"Maybe creating policies with simple regular expressions."
"We would like to see some fairly large scale improvement in the configuration process for this solution."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"Development team's response time could be better."
"The web interface could be better."
"The pricing could always be better. It's a bit expensive."
"Needs to provide a visual interface to follow a customer's activity (from client to BIG-IP to SNAT IP to the chosen server, then back). Today, we are still performing packet captures."
"If one virtual portion is unavailable, it can cause issues."
"While the licensing is good through the AWS Marketplace, it is more expensive than what you could buy yourself."
"Native support for containers should be added to future releases, as this is the future of load balancing."
"The pricing model has caused some frustration. My clients implemented the solution and later wanted to upgrade the features but the pricing structure was complicated. There are other solutions with better pricing models."
"An expensive solution for the minimal features we use."
More F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Citrix NetScaler is ranked 2nd in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 85 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is ranked 1st in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) with 116 reviews. Citrix NetScaler is rated 8.4, while F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Citrix NetScaler writes "Optimizing application delivery and ensuring robust network performance with its excellent stability and comprehensive load-balancing capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) writes "Helps deliver applications to users in a reliable, secure, and optimized way". Citrix NetScaler is most compared with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, Fortinet FortiADC, HAProxy, Loadbalancer.org and A10 Networks Thunder ADC, whereas F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) is most compared with Fortinet FortiADC, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, NGINX Plus, A10 Networks Thunder ADC and HAProxy. See our Citrix NetScaler vs. F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) report.
See our list of best Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) vendors.
We monitor all Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.