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 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.

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.

Application Gateway is a tool service that provides high availability, redundancy, and load balancing for deployed applications on the cloud.

Application Gateway is cost-effective and has autoscaling. We can autoscale it.

The application gateway is good, but performance improvement in the containerization environment is needed. 

The traffic that relies on HTTP for a website is being manually configured to HTTPS. This process should be automated. If the protocol is HTTP, it should automatically redirect to HTTPS.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for one and a half years.

The stability is acceptable, but we are encountering issues configuring the container environment. Apart from that, the performance is satisfactory.

 I rate the solution’s stability as seven out of ten, but I rate it as nine out of ten for normal applications.

We have over three hundred customers, most of whom utilize Azure Application Gateway. Some are in the government sector, while others are in the private sector.

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

Microsoft's support is lacking. Their technical expertise seems insufficient, and when issues arise, the support personnel often request screenshots and provide only minimal information. Despite numerous emails and interactions with various technical support personnel, the initial support experience is subpar. The response is very fast, but they're not technical questions, as we need.

Positive

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten for technical users and an eight out of ten for non-technical users. It's a one-time application. However, once configured, it becomes very easy to manage. Deployment takes 20-30 minutes, depending on the number of applications and servers we are configuring.

The product is cheap.

A WAF, a robust firewall solution, has been built into the Azure portal. Two models are available. The WAF is also integrated with the Application Gateway, providing comprehensive security for your cloud applications.

This security feature applies to traditional VM applications running on VMs and extends to autoscaling nodes in containerized environments.

The Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a highly beneficial and flexible feature for facilitating the development of our applications and obtaining necessary certifications, thus sustaining our business operations. It offers scalability and high availability, which are crucial for meeting our growing needs. The Application Gateway serves as the sole solution for providing these capabilities, eliminating the need for developing such features in-house. It's an all-in-one solution that perfectly fulfills our requirements.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.