Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

We used the solution to build our own applications, publish for clients, and provide software for service.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway gives us a lot of benefits, including domain mapping. We use a lot of Azure web tools, API servers, and API agents to fetch data from different locations.

Some application gateway certificates are mismapped. The solution should provide more security for certificate-based services so that we can implement more security on that. We have a lot of limitations while upgrading Microsoft Azure Application Gateway from version one to version two.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for three years.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

There is a limitation on the number of hosts in Microsoft Azure Application Gateway version one, which can be increased. Around 1,000 users use the solution in our organization.

I don't have any issues with the solution's technical support. They give 100% support and respond within four hours.

The initial setup of the solution is very simple and user-friendly.

The solution's deployment time depends on the application. If it is a legacy application, it takes around one hour to one and a half hours. If everything is good from the server side, the deployment will take a maximum of 20 to 30 minutes.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway has less price than other application gateway solutions.

The solution will hide a lot of security benefits in the back end. We have different ports, and the hackers cannot identify which port is used on the back end. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway provides load balancing and high application availability. It is faster than any other gateway service.

Integrating the solution with our infrastructure becomes easy when we receive suggestions from the technical team, which has architecture-level skills. However, if you have less knowledge, the integration becomes very difficult. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Customers use the product for internal and public URLs or websites. They use it with the multi-site feature. The same application gateway is being used for multiple URLs.

The tool is beneficial because we don't have to use another product. We are completely on Azure. Wherever possible, we use all native products or services.

We use all the features. It is very useful. Using WAF, we can control the WAF rules based on our application requirements. We can control what rules should be used and what should be disabled. The role of the tool is limited to HTTP traffic. It does exactly what it must do. It's a regional service.

We know how to use it for DR scenarios. WAF has been the most valuable in protecting applications. We use at least three instances in the back end to give the best performance for our applications. The management and configuration of the solution is quite easy. All certificate renewals are automatically taken care of by Key Vault.

The solution doesn’t support wildcard-based and regular expression-based rules. Wherever it works, we use it. Where it doesn’t work, we use other products. We are waiting to get regular expression support on the path-based rules in future releases. Without it, some of the complex routing cannot be done. For example, if we have 50 path-based routing rules, instead of writing 50 rules, I can write the regular expression-based rule and reduce them to one or two. It would minimize the management of rules.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The tool is quite stable. Once we deploy it, we never touch it. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

We are running more than two instances. We have never had any issues with the scalability. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. Three of our customers are using the solution in their organization. They are enterprise-level businesses.

The technical support is good. We can call support anytime we want. We have worked with the support team on implementations.

Positive

It took me some time to learn the tool. Now, I have mastered it. We can quickly provision it using the automation tools. It is completely automated now. I rate the ease of setup a six out of ten. It is not that easy. We must know how load balancers, routing, and application gateways work. The product is deployed on the cloud. Normally, it takes us four weeks to deploy one application gateway and make it work for a particular requirement. The deployment is all done by Terraform. We have a build stage and a deployment stage.

The product is not expensive. The enterprise customer I work with has never complained about the cost of the solution. It is quite cheap. I rate the pricing a five out of ten. We pay egress fees, too.

People who want to use the solution can use it. I think it is a good product. I'm not very sure about the competing products. I will recommend the tool to others. It works well. It is feature and purpose-focused. Wherever we have HTTP traffic, we should use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway along with WAF. It will give us full protection for our web applications. People should compare the product with Front Door and choose what is best for them. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for publishing.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF).

We got other additional application delivery controllers. Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful. Some websites are published through an application delivery controller, which is not Azure or Microsoft. Having a standard implementation across the IT landscape is what we're trying to address at the moment.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for three years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

We previously used Citrix NetScaler.

The solution’s initial setup was straightforward.

The solution can be implemented in a couple of hours.

We've implemented Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for web traffic management in our organization for inbound HTTPS access.

We use a standard app service plan on the back end. We're talking about some 6,000 to 7,000 concurrent connections, and we haven't faced any scaling issues so far.

The web application firewall feature has proven most beneficial for our security and load-balancing needs. There was a compliance and security requirement to enable OWASP. That's why we enabled SQL injection and other features on WAF.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for its ease of configuration and management. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a great product, and I would encourage everyone to use it if they have a presence in Azure.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

We're using it to expose our application but the main purpose is to make use of the web in a location.

We have increased the security so now our infrastructure is more secure. And  all the inbound traffic is passing through the WAF and not our application because we have some APIs,  based on the encryption apps. So we are changing on the previous load balancer with this application gateway.

The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable.

The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules.

The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. 

The price of the solution can be reduced a bit.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is a stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The customer support team is not very good. I rate them six out of ten.

The initial setup is simple.

The price of the solution can be reduced a bit. 

We are migrating to the application gateway, not to the reduce the cost. We are migrating because we want to reduce the latency to the user.

I recommend the solution if you want to review the response time. So you need to understand why did you want to use it and if your application matches with the other source.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort. 

The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them. 

Azure is pretty stable, but you need to plan your resource use properly. 

Azure Application Gateway is easy to scale. However, you may need to adjust your resources. For example, if you're already using the application gateway and want to use the firewall, you probably need to increase the size of your instances because it will consume more CPU and other resources. Maybe the firewall could be a bit lighter so that you don't need to increase the size. 

I rate Microsoft Azure support 10 out of 10. They always give us great advice and go the extra mile. 

Positive

Setting up Application Gateway is effortless. 

I'm not familiar with Azure pricing for this product, but I know that it is billed based on usage. 

I rate Azure Application Gateway eight out of 10. It's a product that is still under development, but I think we'll see its full potential in a few years. 

Our company uses the solution to publish services that are on Azure. There is more than one way to publish services. 

You can use the Microsoft infrastructure for app services including small programming, configurations related to obligations, and publishing. Or you can publish manually by using VMs and attaching the WAF with the solution. 

The solution does not include a security policy so you need to configure a WAF and attach it to the solution. There is an option in the Gateway to automatically go to the web. 

The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure. You can enable any missing rules or create custom rules if needed. 

The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly.

There isn't a standardized process for blocking IPs. IPs need to be blocked individually, whether one or one hundred. A normal scenario would be to copy and paste multiple IPs at the same time but the solution does not offer this option. Updating takes a long time and is up to the WAF. In most cases, we prepare scripts to handle these updates. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The stability is very high. 

The solution scales automatically based on what you use. 

We are a partner with Microsoft so we have full support under a special agreement. Our support experience is not the same as other users. 

The support we receive is rated a ten out of ten. 

Positive

The setup is straightforward. If you select the features you want in advance, it will be easy. 

The service can be ready in less than one hour. 

We implement the solution for customers with one resource for infrastructure and another for obligation or security. 

The solution is seamless with little ongoing maintenance. 

If you have some live metrics you can't follow, you can get the locks with some experience in the query language. 

The pricing is based on how much you use the solution. This format is good because you don't have to pay for a yearly license that you rarely use. 

We recommend solutions to our customers based on their needs and budgets. Our initial assessment considers the type of company, the application's use case, and what features are needed within the solution or from a third party. 

Other products do not include all of the solution's features. 

Most people are moving from the solution to Azure's Front Door. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We have multiple microservices connected to App Services, which are then connected to Application Gateway. External users communicate with the gateway, which directs them to the appropriate microservices.

The automatic redirection and security features are crucial for us. The performance is the main thing. Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it.

The Autoscaling feature in Application Gateway is very important to us. It allows us to scale based on the number of users without compromising performance.

We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. We suspect the containers we use might be contributing to these issues.

So, I experienced some trouble with containers.

I joined a new project four months ago and have been using Application Gateway since then.

Since we're still in development, we haven't fully tested the stability and availability. We'll have a better understanding during testing and performance evaluation. We anticipate encountering various challenges related to stability and scalability as we expand.

Based on my experience with limited users so far, it's working well. However, we plan to expand usage in the coming weeks, so I'll be able to provide more insights after seeing how it performs under increased load. 

At this point, I haven't experienced any lagging, so I'm yet to test it more thoroughly.

We have a minimum of ten users in development. However, once the product is released, we expect a significant increase, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands of users, as it's a mandatory feature for our medical-based use cases.

We have a subscription and can reach out to their support team if needed.

I previously used the API Gateway in AWS and found it to be good.

In AWS, there's the Load Balancer, Application Load Balancer, and API Gateway, which are comparable to Azure's Application Gateway.

Deployment is done using containers since everything is saved in a container registry.

I work with the cloud-based version of Application Gateway.

The configuration was a bit tricky initially, but it has been smooth since then.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive Because of some high costs. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten. Since I haven't fully utilized all its features, I need more real-world experience to compare it with AWS in terms of pricing, features, and scaling options.

We use the product as an application firewall for Layer 7 security instead of directly exposing applications on any computing platform to the internet. It has enhanced security compliance for our environment.

The product's most important feature is WAF. Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable. It allows you to route traffic to different backend services based on the specific URLs requested from the load balancer.

The product could be easier to use and implement.

We have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for a year and a half.

I rate the software's stability a seven out of ten.

The product works well in terms of scalability. It is suitable for small and medium businesses. However, it costs extra to increase the number of instances. I rate the scalability as eight or nine.

I encounter technical issues related to tunning. I resolve them myself with helpful documentation.

The complexity of the initial setup process and the deployment time depend on different scenarios. I rate the process a six for complex projects and seven for straightforward projects. It includes configuring rules using infrastructure records. It takes approximately two days to two weeks to complete. It requires a lot of time in case of extensive debugging and fine-tuning.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

The product is good to use, integrating with a DDoS attack prevention tool. It would be good to compare it with CentOs as it is easy to use with an efficient setup combining CDN rules and DDoS protection.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a nine out of ten.