In short: Parallels RAS publishes applications and desktops from RDSH, VDI or Azure Virtual Desktop, and is the usual like-for-like replacement when Citrix stops making commercial sense for a mid-sized estate. The two differences that decide most cases are licensing and packaging: RAS is licensed by concurrent user rather than named user, so a shift-based or part-time workforce pays for simultaneous connections rather than headcount, and the features Citrix separates into editions, load balancing, gateway, multi-tenancy, FSLogix and MSIX app attach support, are in the single product. It is not a Citrix clone. Very large estates, and specific HDX capabilities under poor network conditions, are still Citrix's ground.

Who this is for
  • Your Citrix renewal came back materially higher and you want to know what the realistic alternatives are
  • You are being pushed to a bundle that includes components you do not use, or a seat minimum above your actual headcount
  • You publish a handful of applications rather than running a large virtual desktop estate, and the platform feels oversized for the job
  • You have shift workers, part-time staff or seasonal peaks, so named-user licensing bills you for people who are never connected at once
What it costs to leave it

A remoting platform is the hardest thing on the estate to leave, and vendors know it. The applications run there, the users know nothing else, and the migration touches every desk, so a renewal increase gets absorbed once, then again, until the platform costs more than the work it supports. Deciding under a ninety-day renewal notice is how estates end up signing for another three years of something they had already decided to leave.

Why this question is being asked now

Citrix moved to bundled subscriptions under Cloud Software Group, and the practical effect for smaller estates has been consistent: components you do not use arrive in the bundle, minimum seat commitments sit above real headcount, and renewals have come back substantially higher, in some cases at roughly double, often with around ninety days' notice.

None of that makes Citrix a bad product. It makes it a product priced for a different customer than it used to serve. An estate of a few hundred seats that adopted Citrix when it was the only credible option is now paying enterprise pricing for a fraction of the platform.

That is the situation Parallels RAS is usually bought into, and it is worth naming plainly rather than pretending the decision is a technical one. It is a commercial one with technical consequences.

Concurrent users, and why it is the number that changes

RAS is licensed by concurrent user: the maximum number of simultaneous connections, not the number of people with accounts.

For some workforces that is a rounding difference. For others it is the whole business case, and the shapes where it matters are specific:

  • Shift-based work, where three shifts share one pool of sessions and named-user licensing bills for all three
  • Part-time and job-share staff, who each consume a named licence for a fraction of a week
  • Seasonal peaks, where headcount doubles for a quarter and the licence count never comes back down
  • Clinical, retail and manufacturing floors, where devices are shared and people are not the unit of consumption

Where everyone works full time and connects all day, concurrency saves little and we will say so. The exercise takes an hour: peak simultaneous sessions from the existing platform's own reporting, against the named licences currently being paid for. If those two numbers are close, this argument does not apply to you.

What comes in the box, and what Citrix charges separately for

RAS is a single product rather than a set of editions. The things most often priced as upgrades elsewhere are included:

  • HALB, the high availability load balancer, and the secure gateway
  • Multi-tenancy, which matters if you deliver to more than one customer or business unit
  • FSLogix profile container support, and MSIX app attach and App-V integration
  • Clients for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and a browser over HTML5

It also brokers to more than one back end: RDSH and VDI on VMware ESXi, Hyper-V, Nutanix and Scale, plus Azure, AWS EC2 and Azure Virtual Desktop directly, with Proxmox, KVM and Xen through the custom provider framework.

The AVD integration is the part worth understanding before choosing, because it changes the shape of the decision. RAS can manage AVD rather than replace it, which means moving to Azure and moving off Citrix do not have to be the same project in the same quarter.

What you give up, honestly

HDX. Citrix's protocol work is genuinely ahead over poor networks and for graphics-heavy workloads, and if you have users on satellite links, in remote sites with bad connectivity, or running CAD and 3D applications, that difference is real and you will feel it.

Scale and ecosystem. At many thousands of seats, with deep integration into an existing Citrix estate, monitoring, automation and the surrounding tooling, replacement stops being a like-for-like exercise and becomes a programme. That is not an argument against moving; it is an argument for costing it properly rather than by licence price alone.

Specific features. Citrix App Layering, and some of the more advanced session and policy capabilities, do not have exact equivalents. In most mid-sized estates nobody is using them. In some, one of them is the reason the platform was chosen, and that single dependency decides the answer.

We would rather establish which of these applies to you before quoting a migration than discover it during one.

The other alternative, which is often the right one

Azure Virtual Desktop or Windows 365, with no third-party broker at all.

If you are already Microsoft-centric, your applications are modern, and what you actually need is desktops rather than published applications with fine-grained delivery control, going straight to AVD or Cloud PCs is usually simpler and leaves you with one vendor instead of two. We sell that work as well, so we have no reason to push you toward a broker you do not need.

RAS earns its place when you publish applications rather than desktops, when you need to broker across mixed on-premises and cloud back ends, when concurrency genuinely changes the licence count, or when you want to move off Citrix now and decide about Azure later rather than doing both at once.

That last case is the most common and the least discussed. Splitting a commercial problem from an architectural one is often the difference between a migration that finishes and one that stalls.

Who is telling you this

Worth stating, because on a page arguing you should leave one vendor for another the reader is entitled to ask what is behind the recommendation.

Systech is a Parallels partner through the VIPP programme, and our founder Ryan Mangan is a Microsoft MVP who wrote Packt's book on Azure Virtual Desktop. That is an unusual combination for this particular decision: the two platforms most often weighed against Citrix are the two we are credentialed in, which is also why this page keeps sending readers toward Azure Virtual Desktop where that is the better answer.

It cuts the other way too, and you should factor it in. We sell RAS, so read the section above on what you give up as the part with the least incentive behind it.

How a replacement actually runs

Start with what is published, not with the platform. An inventory of applications, who uses them, from where, and on what devices is the thing that determines feasibility, and it is almost always shorter than people expect.

Then the numbers: peak concurrent sessions against named licences, and the real renewal figure including any minimum commitment. That produces a comparison rather than an assumption.

Then a pilot with real users on their actual applications, not a lab. Printing, scanners, smart cards, USB peripherals and the one legacy application nobody documented are where remoting migrations fail, and they only surface with real people doing real work.

Run both platforms side by side through the pilot and into the first migration wave. The overlap costs money and it is worth it: a rollback path removes the pressure that makes teams push through problems they should have stopped for.

What we do with Parallels

  • Compare your Citrix renewal against a like-for-like RAS design, including what you would lose
  • Measure peak concurrency against named licences, so the licensing argument is evidenced rather than assumed
  • Say when Azure Virtual Desktop or Windows 365 is the better answer than any broker, including ours
  • Design and build the RAS environment: gateways, load balancing, profiles, published applications and images
  • Pilot with real users and real peripherals, then migrate in waves with both platforms live
  • Run it afterwards, or hand it over documented, whichever you prefer

Related

Frequently asked

Is Parallels RAS a genuine Citrix replacement?

For most mid-sized estates, yes. It publishes applications and desktops from RDSH, VDI or Azure Virtual Desktop and covers what the majority of Citrix deployments are actually used for. The honest exceptions are real: HDX is ahead over poor networks and for graphics-heavy work, very large estates with deep ecosystem integration are a programme rather than a swap, and a few Citrix features such as App Layering have no exact equivalent. The useful question is not whether RAS matches Citrix feature for feature, but whether it covers what you actually use, and that is answerable from an inventory in about a day.

How much would we actually save?

It depends almost entirely on the shape of your workforce, which is why we measure before quoting. RAS is licensed by concurrent user rather than named user, so the saving is largest where simultaneous connections sit well below headcount: shift work, part-time staff, seasonal peaks, shared devices. Where everyone works full time and connects all day, concurrency saves little and we will tell you that. The other half is the bundle: if your Citrix subscription includes components you do not use, or a seat minimum above your real headcount, that gap is recoverable regardless of concurrency.

Does Parallels RAS work with Azure Virtual Desktop?

Yes, and it is the detail that most changes the decision. RAS integrates with AVD directly and can manage it rather than replace it, so moving off Citrix and moving into Azure do not have to be the same project in the same quarter. Estates that would struggle to do both at once can take the commercial problem first, on their existing infrastructure, and make the Azure decision on its own timetable.

Should we just move to AVD or Windows 365 instead?

Often, and we would say so before selling you a broker. If you are already Microsoft-centric, your applications are modern, and you need desktops rather than published applications with fine-grained delivery control, going straight to AVD or Cloud PCs is simpler and leaves you with one vendor. RAS earns its place when you publish applications rather than desktops, need to broker across mixed on-premises and cloud back ends, when concurrency genuinely changes the licence count, or when you want to leave Citrix now and decide about Azure later. We deliver both, so the recommendation does not depend on which one you pick.

How long does a migration take?

For a straightforward estate publishing a manageable set of applications, weeks rather than months, and the platform build is the fast part. The time goes into the application inventory, the peripheral testing and the migration waves. Printing, scanners, smart cards, USB devices and the one undocumented legacy application are where remoting migrations actually fail, and they only surface with real users doing real work, which is why we pilot with people rather than in a lab and run both platforms side by side until the last wave is done.

What happens if we are mid-renewal and out of time?

Tell us the deadline first, because it changes the advice. If there is not enough runway to migrate properly, the right answer is often a short renewal on the best terms available while the replacement is designed, rather than a rushed migration or a three-year commitment signed under pressure. Deciding a remoting platform against a ninety-day notice period is how estates end up locked into another full term of something they had already decided to leave.

Other vendors we support

Not sure where you stand with Parallels?

Tell us what you are running and we will tell you plainly whether it needs action, including when the answer is that it does not.

Ask us