Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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.

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 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.

The solution is used to terminate the SSL configuration to do SL Inspection for securing your website, as we cannot provide the website directly to the Internet. To prevent it from attacks and to maintain authentication.

The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates.

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

It is a stable solution.

It is not a scalable solution. It's scalable because as I told you, if you are using version one, you cannot upgrade which means it's not scalable and not reliable. Because maybe later next year, they will provide you with version three and you cannot upgrade. So you are in a hassle every year to recreate it.

The technical support team is not good.So they have to put the proper people in Azure to support other people. They should not put first client support, they have they read by the group and do support severity one and severity two cases. So it is an ongoing group with them. That's why I don't rely on Azure support. I do rely on my expertise and my findings.

The initial setup is complex. The deployment needs expertise so one needs to be familiar and read properly and do the testing.

It is an expensive solution. We have an enterprise agreement, it is monthly.

I don't have a lot of visibility on the traffic and I do not like it. So everything that I am locked with, I cannot see the root logs and I don't recommend it. So if it comes to me to decide which solution I would like, I won't go on the cloud unless I have full visibility on my resources. So because while troubleshooting, you will be in a non handling loop with the support and the support of the cloud. They are not able to provide you with the solution. They have to escalate and debug it. So you will be losing days and days troubleshooting. So once you have your appliance, you will have access to the root level, and you can collect the logs, read the logs, send it to the vendor and work with it.

I rate the solution a three 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'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 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. 

I use the solution in my company to protect an external website.

The product's WAF was useful to protect against the OWASP attacks.

The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration. Basically, users get a lot of false positives with the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

I think the reporting elements could be a bit better in terms of having built-in reports, considering how everything has to be a cluster query when you write it, making it an area where users customize the tool. The reporting elements are an area with shortcomings in the tool that could be better as it would be useful to deal with false positives.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for five months. I use the solution internally for my company. My company has a gold partnership with Microsoft.

It is a stable solution.

It is an easily scalable solution.

The tool is not meant for users since it is designed for public access; considering that, I would say that the solution provides protection to our company website, which has thousands of visitors.

The solution's technical support is okay and not that good, considering that my company still has some existing tickets open with the support team, which are related to some login stuff. The problem with Microsoft is they outsource their support to vendors in other parts of the world, so it is like a lucky draw system, meaning you are lucky if you get someone good.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The solution can be deployed in a day.

I deployed the solution by myself in my company.

The product's ROI is okay, in my opinion.

The price of the product is okay. There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution.

My company had looked at the options offered by Cloudflare, but we decided to stick to the stack of services offered within Azure.

For most of our company's in-house resources, we are dependent on the cloud services offered by Microsoft, so it was easy to adopt Microsoft Azure Application Gateway in our organization.

To utilize Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for managing web traffic load balancing in our company, we use products within the Azure landscape like Azure Load Balancer or Azure NAT Gateway.

In our company, we don't have multiple instances of the application to utilize Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for application-level routing and URL-based content distribution. There is pretty much just one instance to deal with in our company, which makes the use of the tool quite straightforward.

The tool's WAF provides a fairly adequate level of protection against common vulnerabilities.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance once it is deployed.

Integrating Azure Application Gateway with other Azure services in our company's existing infrastructure is a fairly seamless process.

I haven't had any issues with the scalability and performance of the product.

I would ask those who plan to use the solution in the future to plan the deployment so they have more time to analyze their data when using the WAF, and you need at least six months of history to see the traffic patterns and to get an alert on false positives.

I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Azure Application Gateway is used on an AKS cluster. We don't want to expose the control plane to the public IP. We created a control plane with a private IP and then put an Application Gateway in front of it. Users can access the AKS cluster through the Application Gateway. The Application Gateway filters traffic to the AKS cluster.

If you don't want to use public IPs and expose your enterprise externally to the public world, and you want strict authorization, you should use Azure Application Gateway.

The login mechanism could be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for a few months.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an internal application that allows people to access it. We have 100s of different users working on it who can access it with their logins. We do not need to set up any database mechanism to add users.

Microsoft Support is good.

The initial setup of Azure Application Gateway is straightforward, provided you have a good understanding of networking concepts and have everything ready.

For deployment, the gateway is already available. It offers maximum protection and everything else.

If you want to build an application with standard authorization and a simple route within the organization instead of multiple routes, then Azure Application Gateway is a good option.

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