Some of you might have viewed the recent (May 2012)” Riverbed versus Citrix Repeaters/Branch Repeater”  competitve brief where Riverbed attempts to portray Citrix as a “minor participant with a small fraction of the customers and deployments that Riverbed has” and position themselves as having a better solution to support ICA traffic. I truly felt compelled to respond as this document is not entirely truthful, misleading and most importantly, attacks one of the core strengths of Repeater and Branch Repeater- optimizing HDX traffic.

Oh, where to start.

Firstly, this competitive brief is extremely similar to the version they created in December 2011 and strangely enough, they continue to promote some disturbing falsehoods. They have done a great job at twisting facts and manipulating them to thier advantage and we will respond with a comprehensive rebuttal to set the record straight very shortly (it takes a while to unwind that many falsehoods!). The fact of the matter is that Repeater and Branch Repeater, as well as the rest Citrix cloud and application networking portfolio, is a comprehensive solution that provides enterprises, service providers, dot coms with the best possible user experience for small, medium, large scale and now extra-large  HDX deployments. Riverbed does one thing and they do it well and are admittedly a leader, but really, what is more compelling a tactical product like Riverbed or a  comprehensive solution like Citrix?

This leads me to the the issue of scale, as Citrix( like most people on planet earth) see the growth of HDX servicess  growing exponentially) and the newest Repeater 17555 and 19555 push the outer limits of HDX simultaneous session of 3500 and 5000- more then double our nearest competitors.  Here at Citrix, we feel very good with our position in the wan optimization space in general and extremely good at our abilities in the  HDX optimization. And with this competitive brief, so does Riverbed….