Why Security Teams Are on the Lookout for Citrix Alternatives to Solve Safe Remote Access

Remote access is non-negotiable in the modern business environment. Employees, contractors, and IT staff need to be able to access applications and systems regardless of location. Naturally, remote access has become a top attack vector for cybercriminals, as it offers direct pathways into critical systems using stolen or abused credentials.

For years, Citrix has been the go-to platform for delivering remote access in enterprise environments. But the dynamic threat landscape is amplifying interest in Citrix alternatives that, in many cases, provide stronger security outcomes with less complexity.

Let’s explore why security teams are increasingly re-evaluating Citrix and what they are looking for instead when it comes to secure remote access.

Why Security Teams Are Rethinking Citrix

Citrix is undoubtedly a mature and widely adopted platform. But several recent choices and design constraints are forcing some security teams to look elsewhere.

The main one is cost. Over the past two years, Citrix has made significant changes to its pricing and licensing model, including a broader shift toward cloud-based license activation and subscription-driven access. These changes have increased costs and reduced predictability for many organizations, putting additional strain on already tight security budgets and leading to scrutiny over long-term return on investment.

Architectural restraints are another factor. Citrix environments rely on multiple interconnected components, including gateways, delivery controllers, brokers, hypervisors, and management interfaces to deliver remote desktops and applications. This approach is flexible, but it also significantly expands the external and internal attack surface. Each one of these services presents a potential entry point.

As a result, achieving strong security outcomes in Citrix environments often requires near-perfect setup and ongoing maintenance. Between hardening gateways, defining strong access policies, and applying patches across components, the margin for error is small, while the potential impact is significant. A single permissive access rule can undermine the security of the entire remote access stack.

What’s more, most organizations lack the specialized expertise required to continuously maintain a complex Citrix deployment. Citrix environments require deep platform knowledge, dedicated administrators, and continuous tuning to ensure everything is working fine and securely. Many teams can’t afford this level of operational overhead.

Visibility is another area where security teams raise concerns. Citrix does provide extensive operational logging and session data, but lacks a unified, security-focused view of user behavior, device posture, and session anomalies. This makes it difficult for SOC and incident response teams to quickly answer critical questions such as who accessed what, from which device, under what conditions, and whether behavior deviated from normal patterns.

What Security Teams Want Instead in 2026

Rather than seeking like-for-like replacements for legacy platforms, many security teams are rethinking what secure remote access should look like in a world dominated by identity abuse, device authentication challenges, session hijacking, and misconfiguration risk.

One of the most consistent requirements is a smaller external attack surface. Security teams today favor architectures that minimize the number of internet-facing assets. Fewer exposed components mean fewer entry points for attackers, less configuration overhead, and a reduced reliance on perfect hardening to remain secure.

Identity-first, Zero Trust access is another core expectation. Rather than granting access based on network location or VPN connectivity, security teams want access decisions to be driven by strong identity signals. This includes continuous verification of user identity, device, location, and behavioral context, not just at login, but throughout the session.

Closely tied to this is the move toward application-level access instead of full desktops or network access. Security teams see traditional virtual desktops as overly permissive for most use cases. Application-level access allows users to reach only the specific tools they need, reducing lateral movement opportunities.

Tying everything together is real-time visibility. Monitoring active sessions as they happen gives you that confidence that, even if preventative controls fail, you still have the ability to spot and stop suspicious behavior.

How to Evaluate a Citrix Alternative

For organizations already running Citrix, replacing a core remote access platform is not a decision to take lightly. Any alternative must be closely evaluated not just on features alone, but on whether it meaningfully improves security outcomes while remaining operationally viable.

Reducing the attack surface should be a strong factor. Understand which components are publicly exposed by default and how many internet-facing services are required for the solution to function. Less is usually better, but you also have to consider whether the design supports the way your organization actually works.

Identity controls are next, and it’s not just about the initial authentication. All solutions handle login and authentication, so the real differentiator is how identity is verified and enforced throughout the session. Access models that limit users to specific applications and re-evaluate risk in real time can dramatically reduce blast radius compared to network- or desktop-level access.

Ideally, all of the data signals around sessions and authentication can be ingested into a SIEM for active monitoring, giving you actionable telemetry for detection, correlation, and incident response workflows.

After going through some Citrix alternatives, you can create a pros and cons list to determine whether the security and visibility gains justify the disruption of change.

Conclusion

Citrix has played a central role in enabling secure remote access for enterprises over many years, and for some organizations, it may continue to meet operational needs. However, design choices, recent pricing changes, and the emergence of some compelling competitors are prompting security teams to explore modern alternatives.