Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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.

Our company uses the solution as a gateway for our customers' application services. We currently have seven users and six customers. 

The solution has been very helpful. 

The cloud platform is really easy to use and doesn't require any maintenance. 

The solution provides great automation and it is easy to upgrade service. 

It could be easier to change servicing. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is responsive and able to solve problems.

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We previously used F5.

The setup is very easy and with a few clicks you can deploy. The entire process takes ten minutes. 

We implemented the solution in-house.

There is no ongoing maintenance because the cloud platform is self-maintaining. 

The solution is reasonably priced compared to other solutions. 

We use the solution and Front Door. 

The solution is suitable for any sized organization. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I use Application Gateway because I need to integrate different resource management. In one project, I had two to three applications to integrate using the API Gateway for security and networking solutions.

The solution integrates different applications and APIs securely, enhancing overall security and network optimization.

It creates security, manages installations, and integrates different applications and solutions. It is flexible and scalable, provides better business solutions and controlled versions, improved security, and comprehensive documentation.

The solution needs improvements in integrating different services and creating a better application balance.

It is scalable, allowing integrations with different cloud platforms like GCP and AWS, and creating varied environments in the Azure platform.

Microsoft does not have personal tech support but contracts external consultants for deployment and support. When a client has an issue, Microsoft sends emails to different MVP architects around the world to provide the best support.

Positive

AWS has many features but presents issues with Microsoft applications integration. Azure is preferred for its flexibility, scalability, and strength as a cloud solution.

The initial setup process is straightforward for me. However, depending on the project requirements, it might be complex for others.

Deployment requires two developers and one architect. Maintenance can be handled by one person.

Depending on the project, the return on investment varies. As an Azure cost management specialist, I can provide detailed cost assessments using the Azure calculator.

Using the Azure calculator, I evaluate projects and create cost prospects. The process is defined by Microsoft's framework and needs specific project assessments.

I have used other ADC or WAF products like AWS. However, Azure is preferred due to its flexibility, scalability, and strength.

I recommend using Azure for its flexibility, scalability, and strong solutions. It is the best cloud solution for various organizational needs.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I've used the solution for a simple at-home application where I just wanted to host something live and have load balancing built into it. I can't remember where the firewall came in. I know there's some sort of blocking for certain attacks through that firewall, but that was about as far as I really used it.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an easy-to-use solution.

The solution can sometimes feel a little cumbersome unless you're a professional infrastructure person. I think the tool is just inherently complicated. You have to manually decide things that could have been done best by default.

I haven't seen any outages with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The solution should be able to handle any load.

I've used all three cloud providers for side projects, including Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. If you have a docker container or an image and want to deploy it somewhere, they're all fairly similar. I would choose to stay on a cloud platform because of cost and convenience purposes. If I already have a database running in one cloud, I might deploy an application with that same cloud provider.

The solution's initial setup is really easy, but it takes a long time to get that comfort.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup ten out of ten.

The solution is fairly priced.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten.

The solution's documentation was pretty good and useful. The solution is well-integrated, and I don't think any challenges exist. We are hosting an LOM application for internal use only, but I don't know the details. As an internal user of the LOM, I find it nice and fast. I would recommend the solution to other users.

I think some things in the tool are multi-step when they could have been a single step. Obviously, I understand that design decisions go into that. The solution can sometimes feel a little cumbersome unless you're a professional infrastructure person.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight 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. 

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 tool to manage web traffic for our applications. It helps us to filter out unwanted traffic. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products. 

I have been working with the product for two years. 

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

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily. 

The tool's deployment is difficult. The time for provisioning varies depending on the company. It can range from as quick as five to ten minutes to as long as one hour or even half a day, depending on the specific requirements of the company you're provisioning for. The team depends on the size of the deployment. 

Our in-house and outsourced resources helped us with the deployment. 

The solution is cheaper than Imperva. I rate it four to five out of ten. 

The traffic must pass through the firewall server and proceed through the application gateway before reaching the application itself. I rate the product a five out of ten.