NetScaler vs. NGINX

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
NetScaler
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
NetScaler ADC is an application delivery controller.N/A
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
NGINX, a business unit of F5 Networks, powers over 65% of the world's busiest websites and web applications. NGINX started out as an open source web server and reverse proxy, built to be faster and more efficient than Apache. Over the years, NGINX has built a suite of infrastructure software products o tackle some of the biggest challenges in managing high-transaction applications. NGINX offers a suite of products to form the core of what organizations need to create…N/A
Pricing
NetScalerNGINX
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
NetScalerNGINX
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeOptional
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
NetScalerNGINX
Considered Both Products
NetScaler
Chose NetScaler
easy to use and setup and reliable. Once the configuration was setup and running this has been really useful and easy to maintain.

The other solutions seemed overly complicated and difficult to configure and get up and running with the security that we required
Chose NetScaler
Similar but different. I have not fully deployed the other product to be able to compare them adequately. I would generally say that the NetScaler has larger functionality and is less pin point focused on the product delivery. There are additional services and functions that …
Chose NetScaler
NetScaler is in a class unto its own. With the ability to vpn, grant remote access, present apps and desktops (normal and 3D systems), add advanced networking and load balancing options, and scale easily it does not really have a direct competitor. Enterprise customers will …
Chose NetScaler
user access is much easier. Don't have to worry about the vpn client, the configuration, users having to know too much know how. NetScalers allow the simplistic approach to remote access.
Chose NetScaler
We chose Citrix ADC over Kemp and F5 due to additional integrations with various products such as Citrix/Horizon/Monitoring tools. We additionally chose ADC due to better ease of use and ability to have the appliances be virtual or physical, with the configuration being a …
Chose NetScaler
  • Easy to manage & upgrade software
  • Stable code
  • User-friendly GUI
Chose NetScaler
Our company uses both Citrix ADC and F5 BigIP. This is mostly due to team preference. F5 seems to require the use of separate types of devices to do multi-site load balancing while Citrix ADC functionality is the same software on all devices you implement.
Chose NetScaler
Since we are primarily a Citrix shop, we did very little additional searching for traffic management appliances. However, we did review the possibility of using Citrix-based products, such as ASAs, via a VPN configuration to meet a similar need. Although we could have made …
Chose NetScaler
Our organization replaced 5 big-IP appliances with Citrix ADC, both are comparable products. The largest advantage for our organization switching to Citrix ADC is the shared code base and reduction of the number of vendors in an implemented solution chain from end to end.
Chose NetScaler
I have only used NetScaler in the past which felt like a completely different application to what it is now. There used to be a substantial amount of lag and associated frustration when using it but now as Citrix it is superb, not perfect but for someone who knows what it once …
Chose NetScaler
Using Citrix ADC vs. a VPN can be helpful sometimes, depending on the network you are using. VPN often takes too long to access the files in the network.
Chose NetScaler
I have experience with Fortinet Gateways and with Watch Guard gateways. I am aware these products are focused on different purposes but overall they are similar as they are Routers/VPN Endpoints. As far as Netscaler goes, it can compare well to these types of devices and excel …
Chose NetScaler
Citrix competes with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. Citrix however adds features that makes for a lighter client. Lighter bandwidth needed between client and server. This enables you to work over slower data links or enables more users on a link. Citrix gives a better …
Chose NetScaler
Other products such as the Barracuda load balancer and NGINX Plus were considered, but not tested. Since our group uses other Citrix solutions, we wanted to go with a unified and integrated approach.
Chose NetScaler
Citrix NetScaler is much more cost-effective than the A10 series and I think it does its job even better. I have used A10 in the past and while they did fine, the did not overly impress me and certainly didn't do enough for the dollar amount that they are attached to.
Chose NetScaler
Netscaler has more features than F5 BIG-IP APM product and easier to manage with friendlier user interface for network admins. It was more cost efficient as well and if you have a Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop environment, it is more compatible with those products as well. Our …
Chose NetScaler
Citrix works the best in my opinion compared to other competition and is most well known.
Chose NetScaler
The Citrix NetScaler is the competitor to the f5 BigIP LTM/GTM. I've used both products extensively and the both have pros and cons against each other. F5 has better support and better documentation, and is purpose built for load balancing applications. The NetScaler has a more …
Chose NetScaler
For hardware products I've used smaller installations of F5 and CoyotePoint appliances. For software load-balancing solutions I've used Piranha (for LVS). The NetScaler and the F5 probably have the highest learning curves and the newer F5's probably have the greater support for …
Chose NetScaler
I use F5 as well, which portions we could do in NetScaler, but we kept our environments separate for specific uses.
Chose NetScaler
Citrix NetScaler seems to be a beast right away. Once you start testing and getting used to the logic that is in place, it becomes the obvious choice for selecting such appliance to be used in an enterprise setting.
NGINX
Chose NGINX
NGINX is more expensive than HA Proxy.
Chose NGINX
The support and ability to provide near zero downtime for changes is a winner. The lightweight engine also helps reduce cost.
Chose NGINX
Apache HTTP Server, Apache Tomcat and Microsoft IIS
Chose NGINX
Easy to Install and configure.
Pick the configuration dynamically without restarting
All the configurations at one place
Chose NGINX
NGINX is faster to deploy and it has minimal setup needs for our POCs over Apache Tomcat
Chose NGINX
How does it compare? We use Apache ATP server and we also use Tom Cat also owned by Apache, but both Apache, ATP, and MKA. They are relatively older than GX and so they're one problem for Apache and MKA they need more power, more memory, and more space.
Chose NGINX
NGINX have higher market share which obviously show to us it is the preferred choice of most of the customers. Both of platform competes in the Web and Application server areas, but due the security features of NGINX be more flexible this in my opinion makes more sense.
Chose NGINX
It is like comparing a formula 1 car against a regular street car in terms of performance or installation simplicity
Chose NGINX
Apache is a market leader but NGINX is new and has new features. Lightweight and can handle static requests. We use EC2 and I believe NGINX is more suited when it comes to scalability.
Chose NGINX
Imperva Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Chose NGINX
NGINX is more stable and scaleable than Imperva Application Delivery.
Chose NGINX
NGINX is faster and easier to configure. It has better reverse proxy features which is much easy to configure.
Chose NGINX
MS IIS and Apache HTTP server both provide many similar services. However the configuration simplicity, and performance characteristics helped us choose NGINX above the other 2 products.
Chose NGINX
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] …
Chose NGINX
Nginx is much more lightweight than apache HTTP.
Chose NGINX
NGINX Stacks up at the top for me because it's fast, reliable, and secure and apache is also usable but not so good in comparison to NGINX and since I and my organization have switched to NGINX I also don't want to look back at apache as NGINX works the best for our use case …
Chose NGINX
NGINX's footprint is much smaller than Apache, and it's great for serving up static content. The URL rewriting was not as familiar as Apache, but just as powerful once configured correctly. As a load balancer, it's much more affordable than Citrix ADC. We used the load …
Chose NGINX
Compared to Apache, NGINX is much lighter on resource consumption, and also far faster as a server, serving static content over twice as fast in most benchmark tests. NGINX doesn't offer as much potential configuration and customization as Apache, however, so if these advanced …
Chose NGINX
Nginx's cache mechanism is better than Apache and HAproxy. Also Nginx is very light weight and works for multiple sites with much less work. i.e. As front end proxy server configuration is very easy as compared to other applications. Apache sometimes crashes and is not able to …
Chose NGINX
Nginx is way easier to configure and runs better than Microsoft’s offering, in my opinion, and I’ll take it over Apache for its simplicity.
Features
NetScalerNGINX
Application Servers
Comparison of Application Servers features of Product A and Product B
NetScaler
-
Ratings
NGINX
7.8
Ratings
2% below category average
IDE support00 Ratings7.20 Ratings
Security management00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Administration and management00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Application server performance00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Installation00 Ratings9.70 Ratings
Open-source standards compliance00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
NetScalerNGINX
Small Businesses
Cloudflare
Cloudflare
Score 8.7 out of 10
Apache HTTP Server
Apache HTTP Server
Score 8.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Cloudflare
Cloudflare
Score 8.7 out of 10
Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat
Score 7.8 out of 10
Enterprises
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat
Score 7.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
NetScalerNGINX
Likelihood to Recommend
8.7
(0 ratings)
8.8
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.2
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.3
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
NetScalerNGINX
Likelihood to Recommend
Citrix NetScaler is suited to any environment where hardware load-balancing, application delivery or SSL offloading is a requirement. It's a product that can be used to manipulate traffic flows in a multitude of different ways and its only limit is the protocol, application and imagination of the administrator. It's not a product that includes helpful wizards to guide the admin through each process gracefully. While it is a fairly intuitive product to use, it's not for someone who is not initiated into the ways of networking and network protocols and communication. Nor is this a product that would lend itself solely for the usage of single usage scenarios where small traffic flows would be expected (although if desired the VPX product would probably suffice in that specific scenario depending on the environment)
Read full review
Nginx is well suited for serving any static content - whether that be images, JS files, HTML files, CSS files, videos, etc. If you have a high-traffic website, Nginx will be a great fit because it handles large number of requests extremely efficiently. Nginx has full support on Unix systems, but only has limited support on Microsoft Windows machines.
Read full review
Pros
  • The GUI interface is fairly easy to learn making ramp-up time faster than some similar products.
  • It is used by thousands of companies around the globe so finding free support on Google is usually quite easy.
  • The virtual implementation version of the product runs on a Linux-based hypervisor install so no additional licensing is needed for the OS.
  • When used in conjunction with a Citrix Web front/Storefront, the integration is very tight making the passing of packets very quick.
  • Even in the lesser VPX versions, there is the ability to have a cluster of Netscalers to allow for uptime capability.
Read full review
  • Straight-forward configuration format that users of all skill levels can learn, and yet is powerful enough for the huge breadth of features that Nginx provides.
  • Massive scale right out the box. We've never had a Nginx instance overwhelmed by requests, and if we did it would be trivial to spin up more Nginx instances to handle the load.
  • SSL termination means that we can deliver content over HTTPS without needing our individual services to require TLS support. This saves us a lot of time and headache while keeping us secure.
  • Nginx is open-source and free, meaning that anyone can use it to power their services, from individual projects to billion-dollar websites.
Read full review
Cons
  • At times it seems like there is a flurry of firmware updates needed to remediate security vulnerabilities which creates some overhead.
  • Out of the box automation using ADM is a bit lacking
  • Nit picking but occasionally there are minor config changes that need to be done via CLI or GUI but nothing significant.
Read full review
  • Nginx often requires some initial configuration. It's worth doing, because you'll end up with great results, but it can be slightly daunting for someone to get started using it. Apache might have a leg up in that regard--When you install Apache, typically it's just about ready to do what you want already. But the issue with Apache is that most people skip the extensive tuning phase required after that, and with nginx it becomes more just a part of the configuration process.
  • Sometimes, the configuration syntax, even though it's powerful and terse, isn't the most intuitive. Luckily there's plenty of documentation about what things mean and how to accomplish certain things. There may not be much that can be done about this--to have a powerful web server, you need a powerful-enough configuration language.
  • The nginx brand is somewhat fragmented, and it can be confusing. There's the open source nginx web server, which I've primarily been referring to. But then there's NGINX Plus, a premium subscription-based service which works with a range of other NGINX products (NGINX WAF, NGINX Amplify, NGINX Controller). I've met a number of people who weren't very familiar with nginx, and instinctively went to nginx.com first, and from there it seems like everything costs money. It's only when they realize there's a different site, nginx.org, that they find what they went looking for.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
Great value for the product
Read full review
Usability
I gave the NetScaler a 7 here because the system once configured and deployed is very easy to use. However, if you did not deploy the system and do not have the fundamental background knowledge then you will have trouble using the product in general. Overall it is a great product and service but does typically require professional services to be deployed.
Read full review
Front end proxy and reverse proxy of Nginx is always useful. I always prefer to Nginx in overall usability when you have application server and database or multiple application servers and single database i.e. clustered application. Nginx provides really good features and flexibility which helps the system administrator in case of troubleshooting and also from the administration perspective. Also, Nginx doesn't delay any request because of internal performance issues.
Read full review
Support Rating
Overall, our organization's experience with Citrix support is that support can be hit or miss. Oftentimes it takes multiple attempts and much longer than desirable to obtain a viable solution for issues experienced with their products. It would be great to see Citrix invest time, effort, and almighty dollars into improving their support and bug fix process across the board.
Read full review
Community support is great, and they've also had a presence at conferences. Overall, there is no shortage of documentation and community support. We're currently using it to serve up some WordPress sites, and configuring NGINX for this purpose is well documented.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Netscaler has more features than F5 BIG-IP APM product and easier to manage with friendlier user interface for network admins. It was more cost efficient as well and if you have a Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop environment, it is more compatible with those products as well. Our annual maintenance cost is lower as well.
Read full review
I have found that [NGINX] seems to perform better throughout the years with less issues although I've used Apache more. I would definitely recommend [NGINX] for any high volume site and I've seen this to usually be the case from most provided web hosts who will pick [NGINX] over alternatives
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Features - There are many features to be used that we haven't quite gotten to.
  • Licensing - The need for licensing is one of those necessary evils.
  • Reporting - It gave our management team the requested graphs and statistics on usage.
Read full review
  • When we first migrated our primary bidding environment architecture to Nginx, it was under duress due to Apache's inability to keep up when we consolidated away from an HAproxy model to a central HTTP proxy. So we even when we did not know what we were doing, we were able to make it work in a bad situation, and everyone was quite happy.
  • The biggest complaint I have is that I find the module compilation requirements for nginx+ rather burdensome. If we pay for Nginx+, I'd love to see then have pre-built modules for ready for each release of more modules. We are spending our own time engineering an in-house solution for module testing for nginx+ releases, which is disappointing.
  • I've also, as the primary Nginx person at my organization, inserted my expertise into other projects, and have saved our company lots of money getting rid of big $$$ appliances for general SSL proxying.
  • Speaking of Nginx replacing SSL appliances, we had an instance where we had to suddenly enable elliptic-curve SSL ciphers and our big $$$ appliances (you know who they are), were falling over. Even their SSL accelerator cards, after all, are just a few extra cores to process SSL. But in an environment of our size, we use DNS to spread the load to hundreds of frontend proxies with dozens of cores each to spread this load out, all at a lower price than ONE of the appliance pairs running Nginx. We couldn't even tell the change in load in our Nginx architecture when we enabled the ciphers.
Read full review
ScreenShots

NGINX Screenshots

Screenshot of Overview of the NGINX Application PlatformScreenshot of NGINX Controller - MonitoringScreenshot of NGINX Controller - Configuration