Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

We have been using Microsoft Azure App Service to host small apps. We have either hosted applications on VM directly or we use Microsoft Azure App Service to host our applications. We have various applications for sales, service, and other purposes where we're using Microsoft Azure App Service.

Within one Microsoft Azure App Service, we can have multiple applications hosted. We thought that it would help save costs instead of using VM, as we can use Microsoft Azure App Service to host multiple applications.

We use Microsoft Azure App Services extensively. It is easy to integrate with other services through simple drag and click functionality.

We have been successfully integrating it with SQL databases and Azure Functions.

Auto-scaling is helpful for Microsoft Azure App Service. However, recently, we are seeing that Microsoft Azure App Service is consuming a lot of resources. We plan to evaluate whether we should switch to containers or use AKS instead.

For Microsoft Azure App Service, they need to make it less resource-intensive or less costly, because from a cost perspective, we are seeing that it is proving more expensive for us.

We have been working with Microsoft Azure App Service for two to three years.

The scaling ability for Microsoft Azure App Service is satisfactory, warranting an eight out of ten rating. However, if we were to switch to containers, that would be better as we could scale much faster and easier.

Support for Microsoft Azure App Service varies in quality. Because we have premium support, we get responses quickly. However, many times we have observed that they send someone who cannot solve the issue immediately and takes some time. An expert typically arrives after three or four hours to work on the problem. On a scale for support, this warrants a six or seven out of ten.

The setup process for Microsoft Azure App Services is simple.

I have not tried other products, but I think Google or AWS would have good competitors for Microsoft Azure App Service.

We have been integrating Microsoft Azure App Service with SQL databases and Azure Functions. Based on our experience, we rate Microsoft Azure App Service a 7 out of 10.

The use case that we have is that we have multiple different APIs that we expose externally for one of our products. We deploy those APIs into these app services.

The product is easy to maintain and deploy.

I do not have notes for improvements.

I have used the solution for around five years.

The customer service is pretty good. I have talked to them a couple of times, and they were able to resolve issues.

Positive

I did use this solution as well in my previous job.

The initial setup is straightforward. They have pretty good documentation.

You don't need people for the implementation team. You can automate the process.

If I compare this solution to AWS, it's cheaper, so it's better.

I personally prefer Azure. I haven't used much of AWS, but Microsoft made it kind of more simple. AWS is kind of complex, frankly. The reason is that AWS is more mature. They have a lot of other things.

I would rate the product ten out of ten.

We're working on the premium, dynamic, and standard price sharing on Microsoft Azure App Service, and most of our APIs are hosted on Microsoft Azure App Service. We're also using the platform for API calls and security management.

We're not currently using Microsoft Azure App Service for any static web. We have a lot of API calls daily that try to access services because our applications are interconnected with either Coupa or Microsoft Dynamics 365.

What I found most valuable in Microsoft Azure App Service is that it's a PaaS.

I also like that it supports Docker and multiple frameworks so that you can work on Java, Ruby on Rails, PHP, and Python.

Another valuable feature of Microsoft Azure App Service is DevOps optimization.

The platform also has connectors and supports on-premise servers, including the IIS server. Microsoft Azure App Service is helpful when my company needs to do some API configurations with SaaS and IIS. However, it still depends on the use case.

I also find Microsoft Azure App Service templates valuable because of their compatibility with WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal.

Microsoft Azure App Service also gives you access to the Azure Marketplace, which helps my company work on Azure functions.

I also like that the platform allows you to have a serverless environment for codes you can run from the server side.

I find Microsoft Azure App Service secure, which is another pro. You can go for the newest security protocol version, TLS 1.2 because TLS 1.0 and 1.1 have depreciated. Microsoft Azure App Service lets you efficiently manage security via private and public key certificates.

Overall, my company had an excellent experience with Microsoft Azure App Service regarding serverless configuring, serverless environments for websites, API calls, and microservices.

Limited integration is an area for improvement in Microsoft Azure App Service.

Another area for improvement in the platform is multi-language support. That still needs to be added because, at the moment, my team still has to work on specific Python languages whenever the API calls need to be configured.

The pricing tier for Microsoft Azure App Service also has room for improvement because it significantly varies. For example, you have premium and dynamic pricing, and people on P2 should be offered dynamic pricing or the high-priced tier on offer could still be worked on.

I want a lifecycle pipeline feature, similar to Azure Pipelines from Microsoft Azure App Service. For example, when configuring the pipelines, I should be able to configure the cloud security posture for a specific deployment. By default, there should be a prebuilt cloud security option that can be configured before moving into the production environment.

Microsoft Azure App Service should also give you a clue regarding the risks. It would be best if you didn't have to connect to other modules because that wouldn't be as beneficial to platform users, mainly because Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of security development kits.

We've been working with Microsoft Azure App Service for three to four years. We're still using it.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a PaaS, so it's pretty stable.

In the past three or four years, my company deployed it with Coupa and Microsoft Dynamics 365, yet I haven't seen any outages.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a Microsoft service, so it has 99.99% stability. I haven't seen any service-related issues from it.

Microsoft Azure App Service is scalable, so if you want to utilize it more, you can go for the recommended price tier. What's best about the platform cost-wise is its detection feature, which tells you if your utilization isn't high in terms of memory, so that advisory helps you manage cost. You'll get a recommendation on which Microsoft Azure App Service module to use.

You'll also find it easy to decide whether to scale up or down for the production or if you need to create an isolated environment.

My company is a gold customer of Microsoft Azure App Service, so Microsoft provides premium technical support. It depends on the issue. For example, if my team has a P1 problem, support will call immediately. The support provided is similar to Cisco Smart Net, where support is very supportive, and it's especially recommended if you have a critical issue and your environment is down.

Apart from Microsoft Azure App Service, my company also uses the AWS serverless API solution, Amazon API Gateway, where microservices and risk APIs run. It's used side by side with Microsoft Azure App Service. As I belong to the security team, I'd always prefer Microsoft Azure App Service because it's pretty systematic, and Microsoft does checks and balances.

If you go for Amazon API Gateway, it's cheap and can give you different configurations. However, it's pretty tricky, security-wise, because you still have to enable a couple of new services for security. You cannot manage security easily on Amazon API Gateway. You still have to configure Security Hub and GuardDuty. It's tricky regarding security and data ingestion of logs because you still need to send that to Amazon CloudWatch directly.

I'm not as comfortable with Amazon API Gateway, which is another reason I prefer Microsoft Azure App Service; However, Microsoft Azure App Service is expensive, but I understand that because of its structure, schematics, easy management, and better security. It's secure by default with security-by-design parameters, and Microsoft would manage significant areas.

The initial setup for Microsoft Azure App Service isn't that complex, but it still depends on experience. It's a basic deployment where you define the subscription and the resources you need to connect, depending on how you connect further. For example, you need to configure the code or container or contain it as a static web. Then, you can choose operating systems, such as Linux or Windows, and select the region.

If you need to connect Microsoft Azure App Service to the GitHub repositories for DevOps, you can also connect it. It would be best if you then defined the networks, the monitoring, and the tags. You also define your application insights. For example, it could be a crown jewel app you will configure. You can also configure the detection, and the process is also straightforward to define, security-wise.

Microsoft Azure App Service is an expensive platform, but it depends on the data ingestion. There's a pay-as-you-go plan and a savings plan for compute, but total costs depend on data ingestion and disk space.

For high performance, security, and isolation, Microsoft offers a disk space of 1 TB, with a pay-as-you-go price of $40 per hour, if I'm not mistaken, but that could be lower depending on your key account manager if I remember correctly.

You have options cost-wise. You either go with the standard service plan or the premium plan for Microsoft Azure App Service. If you go for the premium plan, it's expensive, but it depends on your risk appetite.

If you go for Amazon API Gateway or AWS, it would be cheaper, but what's your risk appetite, security-wise? You can still enjoy security from AWS, but that means enabling six modules, for example, Security Hub, GuardDuty, etc. Then, for data log ingestion, you still need to enable Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose, so that would make the costs more expensive.

In comparison, you can go for the premium Microsoft Azure App Service plan and enable the platform and services. The data will automatically be adjusted toward your Microsoft Sentinel account. You also don't need to procure Microsoft Defender for Cloud because, by default, Microsoft provides security.

Going for Microsoft Azure App Service also means that Microsoft Azure will also manage identity protection.

I'm working on Microsoft Azure App Service, end-to-end security such as Amazon GuardDuty, and AWS Security Hub.

My company uses SQL services, AWS RDS, PaaS, and SaaS.

My team also works on all Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Azure WAF, Azure Network Watcher, and Azure Service Map modules.

My company works on endpoint security and related solutions, such as Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager and Microsoft Purview DLP.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a mobile development platform. It's a serverless environment.

My company has an interconnection with Microsoft Azure App Service, with API calls coming from the platform, so there's no specific user but a service account used by the company.

My rating for Microsoft Azure App Service is seven out of ten based on the features used within the company.

My company is a customer of Microsoft Azure App Service.

The main use cases for Microsoft Azure App Service are mostly related to creating front-end applications, which would connect with a document bot we were developing.

Regarding its automatic scaling and load balancing features, those capabilities are really effective. Certain philosophies are inspired from Kubernetes as well, which makes these features essential and beneficial.

In terms of handling traffic spikes and maintaining optimal performance, it has been highly effective.

I have used its integration capabilities with Azure Functions and Azure databases, specifically Redis, and the integration process was straightforward.

I am familiar with its built-in security features such as authentication and SSL certificates. We use NVA and have integrated it with most of our in-house applications. We are also planning to use NVA for our product where we are trying to offer our product as a PaaS offering.

I evaluate the effectiveness of Microsoft Azure App Service's monitoring tools and diagnostic capabilities as good. Though as an architect, I wouldn't recommend any kind of vendor lock-in, if you are comfortable with the budget, Azure Insight is beneficial as it comes with all monitoring capabilities out of the box.

Microsoft Azure App Service could be improved if it had AI-based integration, which would be much more beneficial. Currently, there's a trend toward prompt-based deployment where one can create a pipeline based on simple English prompts. The system should handle all the setup, allowing users to review and complete the deployment. This kind of integration is available in GCP, but I'm unsure about its availability in Azure, though it should be there.

The price is an issue relevant only for Azure Firewall because until we figured out the policies, there were issues. Once we determined the required policies, we were able to budget the pricing and set up alerts on the pricing part.

For Microsoft Azure App Service, we did not have the same pricing issues. App Service is straightforward, and most of our usage was related to smaller applications, primarily POCs. We didn't encounter pricing issues because we had the option to start the application. For production-based applications, fine-tuning might be necessary, and pricing-related conflicts might arise.

We have not used the hybrid and multi-cloud capabilities of Microsoft Azure App Service to deploy applications across different environments.

Overall, Microsoft Azure App Service is a very effective tool. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 10.

We developed a low-code platform in Microsoft Azure App Service, for showcasing a mission-running application in a replay format for sales validation purposes.

This solution is providing us with options for machine learning that we didn't have before that have helped the organization.

The user interface and the ability to quickly develop are the two main advantages of Microsoft Azure App Service. You can develop anything without having any coding experience and it is not complex and the components are easily customizable. 

There is still room for improvement in terms of the maturity of the solution. Everything is available that we need, but the issue is that they are still upgrading. Even though they have Azure applications and automation services, they still need to mature more. There are many things that need to mature and the road map for this is quite long, taking another three to eight years to have a mature solution.

The dashboards could improve. Customers are still not satisfied with the current releases, and because there are too many releases.

Microsoft Azure App Service apps cannot be deployed on-premise. They can only be deployed in the cloud.

I have been using Microsoft Azure App Service for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure App Service an eight out of ten.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a scalable solution and can be done easily. The solution does not take long to deploy and scale to multiple environments.

The number of people using the solution can vary, as there may be multiple concurrent users at any given time, such as 23 users. Overall, we may have approximately 100 to 150 users. It depends on how we configure the pipelines. Concurrently, we may have 23 to 100 users accessing the solution at the same time.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure App Service a six out of ten.

We only use support when we encounter a problem. We don't have much support up front. We have to rely on trial and error to fix issues.

I rate the support from Microsoft Azure App Service a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We tried Appian and Oracle Application Express prior to using Microsoft Azure App Service.

We switched to Microsoft Azure App Service because the customer already had an Azure license and could use it, which was not the case with Appian or Oracle. The licensing cost is much higher for those platforms and they also have their own cloud. Additionally, Appian requires the use of all three clouds. The customers are more familiar with Microsoft products. They preferred to use Microsoft Azure App Service over Oracle or Appian. They wanted to have a single solution for their entire organization and most of their work is done with Azure. These were some of the issues we faced and why we switched to this solution.

The deployment of Microsoft Azure App Service was simple. We had integrated cases with everything set up for us. It didn't require much knowledge. Anyone with basic knowledge can do it. It doesn't require an extraordinary person. It's one of the easiest setups.

The deployment of the solution does not take long. It is very simple and can take as little as 30 to 40 minutes.

We use scripts and execute them for the deployment. We have some scripts that are automated. Everything is based on script-based automation. We follow the DevOps process to create and deploy the applications.

Once it is configured, it doesn't require any additional resources. Only if there are any corrections needed, then we would require resources. Otherwise, the pipeline is automated and there is no need for manual intervention unless there is a problem.

I rate the initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service a seven out of ten.

Deployment is done by only one person but it can depend on how the pipeline is configured.

In terms of resources, we have created an automated solution that has reduced manual effort. It is also providing us with options for machine learning solutions that we didn't have before. This has reduced the number of development engineers needed, as it doesn't require as many resources. For example, creating a user interface and backend are eliminated in this solution. The development effort and resources required have been reduced. Previously, we needed 10 resources, now we only need three resources to handle the same workload. This has resulted in a saving of seven resources.

the licensing cost is too high from some perspectives. For example, if we can deliver a package that is already being used by others, it would be better for new customers who are low-income, as they cannot afford the high prices or fees. This is because the chargeable aspect is a problem for them. Additionally, once we have developed something in Microsoft Azure App Service if we want more of the same in the future, we have to create another application, which is not ideal for low-income customers as they prefer to have everything in their own control.

It could be beneficial to provide proper licensing options. It would be helpful if they split it into multiple packages from a development perspective. Additionally, offering free licensing for development and charging for production could be beneficial for Microsoft.

The price of the solution is high overall.

I rate the price of Microsoft Azure App Service a five out of ten.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Microsoft Azure App Service.

I would recommend that if others already have a cloud platform, specifically a Microsoft Cloud, they should use Microsoft Azure App Service. It allows for faster development, even if you don't have many resources or coding knowledge. Instead of creating apps from scratch, it is a great tool to use a no-code solution to develop apps. It's a rapid development tool. If you have limited resources this is a great tool to use and scale them.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service an eight out of ten.

We use Azure App Service for several web services and websites hosted on the Azure cloud. It was a COVID-driven decision because we serve hundreds of colleges and schools that are part of our industry. All the services hosted in-house had to be scaled and made accessible over the cloud. Azure was the easiest available option at that time. We have around 80,000 users on our Azure Cloud applications and about three admins.

I'm a decision-maker, not a technician. From my perspective, the most significant advantage is that Azure is a one-stop shop. Everything we needed was included in the Microsoft Agreement. During COVID, it was the most convenient and most straightforward decision. 

Now, we are reevaluating all the hosting post-COVID and realigning our strategy. Initially, our main concern was ensuring business continuity and remote work.

I want more transparency in billing. It would be better if we could understand and control the billing to customize it. Also, Microsoft should provide more guidance about the widgets and subsets of various products. The Microsoft portfolio is so huge that it's sometimes difficult to choose the correct option. There's always a chance we are paying more than necessary.

We have been using Azure App Service for about two years ago.

Azure App Service is a stable product, but we're reevaluating everything with an eye toward achieving the optimum utilization of various platforms. I believe there is still a lot of room for optimization compared to how we are using it today. In the future, we'll be more selective about which services we will use on Azure Cloud and other clouds. We are moving toward a private and hybrid cloud setup.

It is quick and easy to establish anything on the public cloud these days. I had no problem provisioning and creating machines. We have ample technical resources, so it was all straightforward for us. 

The cost requires a lot of monitoring to ensure it doesn't go through the roof. Azure is expensive, and the pricing isn't transparent relative to other options on the market.

We are reevaluating each application to optimize our hosting. It isn't one size fits all. I don't think will be hosted on Azure, AWS, or Google Cloud. We will mix and match based on orchestration requirements and requirements, traffic loads, etc.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Services seven out of 10. To use the product, you need to be trained in Microsoft solutions because they all work closely together, though they are compatible with the other services. However, Azure does have a high density of Microsoft-native products. If a person does not have a strong background in Microsoft products, they will struggle initially. It will be easier with some foundational knowledge. 

It simplifies the deployment of applications, including those built with technologies like .NET or UCS, making it particularly valuable for microservices applications. It streamlines the deployment process, allowing developers to easily deploy and manage their applications without requiring dedicated DevOps engineers.

The primary and standout feature is ease of deployment.

Having a surplus of tutorials from Microsoft, rather than relying solely on documentation or features from other sources like YouTube, can be beneficial.

It offers excellent stability capabilities.

It offers configurability through the Azure portal. Adjusting resources such as CPU or memory is a straightforward process, making it easy to scale up or down based on your requirements. We manage multiple projects. Each project, whether it's a toll-free initiative or any other, typically involves three or four developers who contribute to the content and development processes.

Deployment is a straightforward process: after coding, you package the application into a folder, compress it into a ZIP file, and execute a command line with the ZIP file's path. This command includes the ZIP file's location, and Azure App Service takes care of running the application and exposing it without any further complexities. I can handle the deployment on my own.

The cost is reasonable.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for MDM management. 

We primarily use the solution for application deployment. It is very easy to use. 

The solution is very simple to set up. 

It is stable and reliable. 

The solution can scale.

Pricing is moderate.

So far, it has been good. We haven't used it for that long and haven't had any issues. 

The pricing is average. It could be lower.

There are still some improvements that could be leveraged in the future to make it even better.

The response time could be better.

We've used the solution for about one year. We've used it quite often.

This is a stable, reliable product. We haven't had issues. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate stability ten out of ten. 

We have 600 people using the solution.

It is a scalable product. I'd rate scalability ten out of ten. 

I've never contacted technical support. I'm not sure how helpful they would be.

I did not previously use a different solution. We chose this solution to help improve the daily management of mobile users. 

The initial setup and implementation have been quite straightforward. It is not complex. I'd rate the ease of setup ten out of ten. It's very easy. 

The deployment process was very good. It took maybe a few hours, including lead time. 

We have 500 people deploying and maintaining the solution. 

We've witnessed ROI while using the solution. It's worth the purchase. 

The pricing is decent. It's not overly expensive. I'd rate the affordability five out of ten. The pricing is average. 

We may have looked at other options as well. We did also look into Office 365. 

We are end-users and customers. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. 

It's useful for companies that use iPads.