Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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.

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.

We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly. 

The product's performance should be better. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's stability an eight out of ten. 

The tool's scalability is good. My company has 500 users for the solution. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's support could be faster. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's setup is neither complex nor easy. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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.