Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

Our client is using three to four applications. One use case is with the integration layer, which has the website running on the web app. It interacts with different applications and with their on-premise SAP solution as well. This app service works as an integration layer between the SAP solution and other different applications. The solution also has its patient application running, which is the patient appointment system, since our client is a healthcare organization. That separate application also runs on App Service and is deployed on Application Gateway.

I find its Application Gateway's WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks.

Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port. But I believe they are working on it.

Another shortcoming is that the maximum permissive size for the request body size is two MB, and it needs to be increased up to five MB or more. Some other third-party solutions or even AWS provides better request body size in this regard.

I would like to see some more features in WAF with the next release to make it more competitive with leading web solution providers. When we compare the WAF with other solutions like F5’s WAF, Application Gateway’s WAF has fewer features.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten. It took us four or five months to optimize the solution.

I rate Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten because it is very good. It has an autoscale feature. The solution is being used on close to 200 endpoints. My client is a medium-sized healthcare business.

Sometimes customer support puts issues in loops, where they take us through L1 and L2, and it takes some time to get to the right person who can address the issue.

I rate the initial setup an eight-point-five out of ten because it is easy. Deploying the solution takes a day or so, but all the configurations, working with the application team, and optimizations take time. Usually, it takes three to four days.

While deploying the solution, we gathered application data first, such as the URLs which we needed to run the app services, health probe ports, the certificates from the customer, and any custom flash rules which may need to be created. We gathered all the information from the customer and the customer's development teams.

I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this. The product's price is good considering the set of features it provides. There is no cost in licensing, but they charge us based on the size of the application gateway, the data being transferred, and the gateway's scalability.

The solution's app service and application gateway took us eight months to implement. It's a huge infrastructure.

If you are considering using Application Gateway, you have to understand the application flow thoroughly. If it will be an integration layer where you might face a lot of issues, counseling with the developers and the customer's teams is very important. The solution requires optimization from the WAF perspective as well as timeouts and other settings. It may take some time to stabilize. The product is stable, but I rate it a seven out of ten based on the features I've seen in competitors, like third-party dedicated WAF solutions, which provide a lot more flexibility and features to their customers. However, they are more costly. And when you have to design scalable solutions, they cost a lot more.

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.

We are using it to add an extra layer of security to our backend, protecting against denial-of-service attacks and other security threats.

We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution.

There is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

We just recently implemented it and are still exploring its features.

It is stable so far to our needs.

It is scalable so far to our needs.

The setup process is easy to follow by just following the official documentation. We were able to set it up within a few hours.

It is relatively expensive but still within our budget, especially compared to more expensive alternatives like Barracuda. There's no license. It's a cloud-based solution.

As we are already fully on Azure, it leverages other functionalities and remains cost-effective.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. 

We are using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for load balancing and for an additional layer of security.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for approximately six months.

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

The scalability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is great and can be done automatically.

We are doing approximately 10,000 requests per second.

The wait time for a response from the support can be too long. Additionally, we have called repeatedly and we did not have a good experience.

I rate the support from Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I used Imprivata OneSign and F5 prior to switching to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway because of the better cloud performance.

I rate the price of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight out of ten.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is simple when you follow the instructions.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight 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. 

It's really useful, and I have used it for API applications as well as web applications. Apart from that, you can write your custom rules. 

I have widely used it for applications. It's good if you have a single application, as well as a number of applications. You can have one application and configure everything in one application gateway. 

Microsoft can work on it as the pooling size as the max pool size is two hundred. Sometimes, when there's heavy traffic, it gives a bad gateway error. 

If you are using a third party application and have network constraints, you can use the API in your network and then create a proxy out of it. It is URL-based. 

The solution's integration is very good.

The troubleshooting feature is also good, as it gives you a fair amount of permission.

Microsoft needs to work on their documentation.

The scalability needs improvement.

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

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

The solution can be made more scalable. 

The technical support team is quick in their responses.

Positive

The initial setup is complex at the beginner level due to lack of documents. 

The solution is reasonably priced. 

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

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.