Index › Products › NetScaler · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

NetScaler

14Judge labels

0First choices

7Negative labels

8 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. NetScaler was named 7 times in Load balancers, where HAProxy led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business97 of 104

under the label threshold

Mid-market89 of 94

under the label threshold

Enterprise26 of 99

under the label threshold

In load balancers · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named NetScaler for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Load balancers	Network and edge	0%	89 of 94	57%	7	under 10 labels · led by HAProxy at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for NetScaler yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated NetScaler across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	2	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase9 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Choose NetScaler if you are closer to a larger-enterprise profile” Perplexity Sonar · Load balancers · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Highly popular in enterprise networks” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Load balancers · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“What I'd avoid for mid-sized B2B ... Citrix/NetScaler: More geared toward remote access and large-scale enterprise environments.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Load balancers · paraphrase prompt · hard negative

“Skip expensive commercial appliances (F5 BIG-IP, NetScaler)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Load balancers · budget prompt · hard negative

“The Caveat: It has a steeper learning curve, and the licensing can be complex. Only choose NetScaler if you have the budget and a dedicated network administrator” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Load balancers · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“overkill/expensive for mid-sized unless you need advanced multi-cloud security or have Microsoft-heavy stacks” Grok 4.1 Fast · Load balancers · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as NetScaler, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and NetScaler was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

HAProxy9 of 142Not among the top eight

F5 BIG-IP9 of 141Not among the top eight

NGINX8 of 141Not among the top eight

Progress Kemp LoadMaster6 of 144Not among the top eight

Citrix ADC6 of 140Not among the top eight

Cloudflare Load Balancing5 of 140Not among the top eight

Traefik5 of 140Not among the top eight

Radware Alteon4 of 141Not among the top eight

Azure Load Balancer4 of 140Not among the top eight

AWS Elastic Load Balancing3 of 142Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named NetScaler. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 12 of the 14 answers that named NetScaler and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

expertinsights.com7

f5.com6

kemptechnologies.com6

radware.com6

sourceforge.net6

gartner.com5

loadbalancer.org5

worldmetrics.org5

g2.com4

peerspot.com4

Fifty-four of the fifty-four domain citations in answers naming NetScaler came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

expertinsights.com/network-security/the-top-application-delivery-controllers-adc7

radware.com/cyberpedia/application-delivery/best-application-delivery-services4

xurrent.com/blog/top-load-balancers4

enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/data-center/application-delivery-controllers3

fortinet.com/products/application-delivery-controller/fortiadc3

gartner.com/reviews/market/application-delivery-controllers3

kemptechnologies.com/application-delivery-controllers3

peerspot.com/categories/application-delivery-controllers-adc3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

netscaler.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, NetScaler takes 0% of first choices and HAProxy takes 29%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “load balancer”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “load balancers”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 2,400 a month (“netscaler”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 279 a month

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 89 of 94 in load balancers

Segment leader

29%

HAProxy

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 14 answers
Its own site cited: in 12 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on netscaler.com

103

subdomains included

Content

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

47 · 4

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	12	0	2025-10-02
News or press	11	0	2026-03-27
Glossary or explainer	9	undated
Case study	7	undated
Report or ebook	1	undated
Comparison	1	undated		CDN

Most recent

2026-03-27Important update cve disclosures now live on the citrix community site news or press
2025-11-12Certificate lifetimes are shrinking your business continuity doesnt have to automating ssl tls at scale with netscaler news or press
2025-11-11Medium severity security update announced for netscaler gateway and netscaler news or press
2025-10-02An executive blueprint for streamlined app delivery blog
2025-09-08Netscaler and nutanix ahv transforming enterprise infrastructure news or press
2025-08-26Critical security update announced for netscaler gateway and netscaler news or press

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page netscaler.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as NetScaler

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as NetScaler; a claim can dispute any of them.

Citrix/NetScaler 2Citrix ADC/NetScaler 1NetScaler (by Citrix) 1NetScaler (formerly Citrix ADC) 1

Follow NetScaler

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when NetScaler's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as NetScaler, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for NetScaler by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where NetScaler is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name NetScaler, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.