Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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.

The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use.  

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has two projects that use it. 

The tool's deployment takes one week to complete. 

The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a useful solution. I rate it a seven 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.

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.