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. 

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.

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 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. 

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 solution for isolation and load balancing.

The solution offers the ability to scale the bandwidth in real-time and observability.

The product should improve its cost-to-performance ratio.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for 18 months.

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

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

All Azure services have the same support. There is no specific support. There is a similar team for all components and tickets. They need to do a much better job. The quality and speed of support should be improved.

Neutral

The initial setup takes a few minutes.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product is expensive.

I advise other users to monitor their usage and not build unnecessary gateways.

Overall, I rate the solution 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 are using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway which hosted our domain as a load balancer. We have an application visible to the public and the traffic passes through this solution.

The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management.

The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for approximately three years.

We have had some issues with the stability.

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

We have approximately 600 requests from one balancer and a total of 3,000 requests.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

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

Neutral

I have used a solution prior to  Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The implementation of the solution was complex, it took a few hours to complete.

I rate the initial setup of  Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a four out of ten.

It is for securing traffic. It provides security against OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, so there is a V2 WAF App gateway. 

This product works well to secure my public facing websites from things like sql injections

The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful.

It is a bit tricky to configure in the UI. You've got to configure front end back end ports ips and the  map the listeners & rules for single or multi sites to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure a pre-defined configuration Mapping the certificates from key vault. I think this would make app-gateway much better although it is a very good secure product. Automating this end to end takes a bit of of time to work out but once its done its very secure.

I used it within the last six months. 

Its stability is pretty good. I've had it running now for about six months. 

It scales pretty well. Its availability seems pretty good. As long as you set the metrics right, it will scale efficiently.

Their support is all right. Microsoft's support has covered it pretty well. I would rate them a four out of five.

It is a bit tricky to configure, but once you do it, it is all right. Its configuration is a bit tricky in terms of getting the rules right. You got to get the rules right, and you got to get the endpoints right. The backend is easy enough to configure, but you need to get the rules right. 

The mapping of the certificate got to be done in a very specific way for it to work. Once the certificate is there, pulling that certificate is easy enough, but you've got to map it manually because the configuration settings are quite tricky to do. You've to basically do it in the UI. I've had to do that a couple of times, so I've got it perfect in automation.

I would advise going for OWASP Top 10 filtering. It is a must-have for V2 WAF security.

Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten. It is a good product, and once you get it configured, it does work well.

We are using it for application load balancing and scaling.

It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it. 

It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application for the last six months.

I think the scalability is okay, but I haven't tried to scale it.

Application Gateway is tied into our applications. We have about 5,000 connections into Application Gateway, on average. There are around 800 to 900 requests per minute.

I have not had to contact Microsoft tech support about Azure Application Gateway.

Previously, we were in AWS. We just migrated to Azure. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you compare it with AWS, it's a little bit complicated, but overall, the technical aspects are very simple.

A normal Application Gateway deployment takes around 20 to 25 minutes, but again, the application of certificate changes takes around 20 to 25 minutes, so the total time involved is about one hour.

We did not use a third-party. Currently, I'm the only person handling the solution in our company. My main task in Application Gateway is configuration, as it's a service that is provided by Azure. There is not much more for me to do than configure it.

Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS. Our main implementation strategy is based around the pricing. If there are any technical features that we need to consider in addition, we will. If the prices for those additional features are okay then we will use them.

The features in both AWS and Azure seem to be comparable. We are enabling all the security features that were available in AWS. 

From my few months of experience with Azure, the configuration changes we are making in Application Gateway, such as a certificate change, are taking more time to apply to the service. In AWS it was very quick. It would take less than one minute, but here it takes almost 10 minutes to apply that certificate. That time difference is huge. That is the only drawback or issue that I have faced with the Azure Application Gateway. 

Other than that, the two services look the same.

There are two versions of Application Gateway. Version 2 is a seven out of 10. I would rate version 1 at three to four out of 10.