Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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.

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 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.

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.

We tried to integrate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway into our technology stack, but we realized that our service solution didn't see it at all during the integration. But I was played around with it for about two weeks to one month.

We were searching for a WAF solution which we could integrate into our stack and were using the management provided by the agent. We tried to integrate a vacation gateway controller, but we realized that the integration wasn't very good.

The most valuable feature is WAF.

It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. 

IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me.

I used Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for about two weeks to a month.

We got the feeling that this product wasn't stable or good enough for us.

Microsoft technical support could be better. For example, when some rules were disabled and other rules couldn't be disabled, I contacted Microsoft Support. But I didn't get an answer until the next day.

The initial setup was very complex. I spent a lot of time just troubleshooting the backend and figuring out how to connect it correctly. It can take just minutes or hours to sort it by hand using the agent portal. But it took me several days to realize how to set up it using Terraform.

I installed and deployed this solution by myself.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a five.