Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

Neutral

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.

I like the tool's stability and performance. 

I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive. 

I don't find the solution to be stable. 

I have had issues with the customer service's responses. I want the support to be more quicker. 

The tool's setup is straightforward.  

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The solution is being used from warehouse to production. In short, for everything. 

The production is a valuable feature. 

The working speed of the solution needs improvement. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for quite some time. 

The solution is mostly stable. 

It is a scalable solution.

For the initial setup, I would rate it five or six. 

The deployment takes eight months. 

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use this solution to hide all of our applications behind the firewall. The application logic and dependencies are not known to the outside world because you don't have to open your external public IP to them.

It does not particularly improve functionality but you get the benefit of the security that is offered by Azure.

The Azure Application Gateway allows us to hide all of our backend components from our clients.

This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date.

Once the gateway is configured, you can route all of your client requests based on the relevant part. For example, if somebody is asking to upload an image then a separate part will be called, whereas if they are asking to upload a video then it will be a different repository.

The documentation is not user-friendly and it is not very easy to use. For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved.

The tutorials are something that can be improved upon.

I would like to see this more of a multitenant solution.

I have been working with the Azure Application Gateway for almost 11 months.

It is a good service that is provided by the vendor and it is stable.

It is getting more scalable as more features are being added.

We have not been in contact with technical support for this solution.

We use Microsoft products for the majority of our applications and we are completely dependent on them. We did use another service prior to this one, which was an internal tool, but we switched to Azure because everything is being controlled by the vendor.

The configuration involves defining all of the routes. This is somewhat complex and is not easily understandable by just anyone. Our deployment took about 15 minutes.

We have an internal team for deployment and maintenance.

We did not evaluate other options before selecting the Azure Application Gateway.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is that it is not a must-have feature, but rather, a security service. If you're ready to bear the cost for security then you should implement the application gateway. 

This is a product that is in good shape.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.