Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

I am using Microsoft Azure App Service for running web applications.

The most beneficial aspect of Microsoft Azure App Service is its automated DevOps deployment, which includes configurations that ensure secure connections to key vault and database resources.

Extended uptime and improved speed would be beneficial for both development purposes and the free tier of the service. Currently, the uptime is limited to a few hours per day, which could be increased to provide more continuous and efficient usage.

I used Microsoft Azure App Service within the last 12 months.

Microsoft Azure App Service is highly stable.

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

The solution is scalable. 

We have approximately 20 people using the solution.

Microsoft Azure App Service offers multiple tiers that can be scaled out as per the specific requirements of the developer or team. Choosing the appropriate tier depends on the performance and load requirements of the website.

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

Often, the team responsible for supporting a particular solution may have biases towards it and may encourage customers to use it, even if it may not be the optimal solution for their needs. Additionally, the support attempt to upsell solutions that are not desired.

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

Neutral

I have previously used WebLogic, Tomcat, Red Hat, and JBoss. There are a lot of application servers, which we used to run on-premise. We switched from these solutions to a cloud offering. Many companies are moving to the cloud.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service is straightforward and easy. It is helpful to read the documentation. It takes a few minutes to deploy.

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

One person is able to do the deployment.

We received a return on investment using  Microsoft Azure App Service.

As you move up the license tiers it becomes expensive.

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

The solution requires one person for maintenance. Some of their responsibilities are updating the code and deploying the web app.

If you need to quickly set up and run an application without incurring any setup costs, this is the way to go. With this approach, you don't need to install or run anything on-premise. Simply create the application and start using it - the setup process is straightforward and fast.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service a ten out of ten.

We use this product for integration and use a bidirectional approach. Some cases are created in service now, which are pushed to Salesforce. When an item is created in Salesforce, it is also created in ServiceNow which exposes some risk APIs. Those risk APIs are Salesforce, snow and sales group, but it's not enough for our portal because they need some customization, so we do it ourselves with function apps deployed over Azure. The function apps are forced through API and ServiceNow and application performance integration systems. These function apps are consumed by those APIs.

We are able to do millions of things simultaneously. Additionally, Azure maintains and manages the server, which is very helpful because we don't have to. The microservice architecture is also very good. Performance wise it is the best thing I have ever found.

The product could be improved by including crude operations. Previously, we provided it in the same application. However, when the operation went down, other operations also went down. This was one of the risks we had to overcome with this solution to avoid other operations being affected when one operation went down. With this resolved, the performance will be seamless because data can be handled simultaneously.

We have been using this solution for the last six months. Microsoft Azure App Service has multiple plans and subscriptions. It provides access to certain subscriptions and specific profiles, fewer consumption plans and subscription premium plans. So when we work on logic or function apps, they provide certain resource groups. We can discuss certain logic and function apps when we have access to resource groups.

The solution is stable. Everything is organized. Additionally, access is provided to their help centres in case you face difficulty. When we had issues, we contacted them, and they made a ticket and resolved it.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 50 to 100 people in different roles use this product in our company. However, I am unaware of the total amount of people that could be added to this product.

Unfortunately, I cannot comment on our experiences with customer service and support at this time.

The initial setup was easy. However, understanding the configuration was important because everything was very systematic. The configuration is slow without understanding the systematic process.

Deployment is fast, and it takes a few seconds to publish it. This often occurs in our application because we have to make changes, but not all of our staff are involved in deployment. We take 15 minutes from the client and 15 for testing, but it takes only two to three minutes to publish.

There are several plans available for different licenses and costs. When using this product for the first time, it is essential to understand the type of scaling required, the kind of skills needed and the level of necessary tiers. For example, to keep services running for up to 24 hours, there is a charge, but if you want to have your app services running for 12 hours daily, there is a different charge. You can also purchase specific plans. In addition, there are different types of client packages. Therefore it is important to explore each package to find the one best suited for the task required. We suggest using this product, which is helpful because it improves performance and loading times.

We chose this product because it has several plans, including consumption plans. My company will not have to worry about maintaining server systems. Hence, we only have to perform a daily routine after deploying and maintaining the service. Our company handed these tasks to Azure. Microsoft Azure takes care of our content application, including when to turn it off. We pay for these services, which saves us the pain of managing them. This is very important when using Microsoft Azure.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. It is a very good solution that improves our performance. However, it would be helpful to include flow diagrams via logic apps in the next release.

We have used App Services to integrate a lot of solutions, to bring content from a different domain or maybe a different data source. 

We were using a lot of Microsoft Azure services to build. We were also leveraged to deploy non-SAP solutions like Python Machine Learning IOTs, using these App Services to bring solutions into SAP.

We were doing one POC for one of the last customers where we had to integrate mobile solutions and IoT. We were using App Services to build those IOT components, retrieve data, and integrate with SAP.

We were using some temperature readings for our supply chain logistics company. Once we read temperatures, we'll push it to the App Service, and App Service will internally push it to the digital twins. From there, we get the events and consume those events into a function, and then whatever the functions read will be pushed into the DB.

The best feature is the latency is significantly less. The functions which are provided in this App Services app work very fast, and there are no latencies that we see. The realistic data allow us to configure analytics on top of it, and it is very fast.

It is easy to set up.

The cost is reasonable.

We've found the product to be stable. 

Recently, we have used some scheduling and event management. From an IoT use case perspective, we're all good, however, we should have additional plugins.

We started using the solution in 2021.

It is stable so far. We have not received any challenges during our implementation. 

Azure was very fast in doing scalability from a user management perspective. Whenever you add a new user, it automatically aligns, and then the license gets adjusted automatically.

We have a few thousand users. Pretty much everyone uses it. 

We began using the solution due to the fact that digitalization is becoming normal now, and we have to integrate a lot of non-SAP solutions. App Services gives a lot of flexibility for us to bring data from any data source and push it to enterprise services, which we want to consume.

The solution is easy to set up. It's very easy. it's not complex at all. 

It only takes about a week to deploy a bare-bones product. To have an end-to-end solution, it only takes 20 to 30 days. 

From a licensing cost perspective, Microsoft Azure, compared to other cloud services providers, is competitive and reasonable from an implementation point of view.

The Azure license is based on usage. It's pay as you. We pay for what we consume. 

We are partners with Microsoft.

I'm not sure what version of the solution we're using. 

I'd advise users to try out the product.

I would rate it eight out of ten. It is flexible and easy to use. Configuring and deploying are also quick and easy. 

We are using Microsoft Azure App Service in systems, such as government, credit loan, and app services.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure App Service is autoscaling and resource grouping. Additionally, the integration works well, it is easy to do.

Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of complexity because there are a lot of options and functionality. It is simple to become confused, there are many technical elements to learn before you can utilize the solution. If they could make the solution easier to use it would be a benefit. 

In an upcoming release, mobile device usage could be a better experience.

I have been using Microsoft Azure App Service for approximately five years.

The solution is highly stable.

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

With all the deployments we have in many companies there are only a few users that use it.

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

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service is simple. 

The price of the support could improve. It is expensive.

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

I did compare this solution with Amazon AWS and Amazon and Amazon EC2. They are all comparable solutions. What stands out the most in Microsoft Azure App Service is the speed. Selecting the best solution will also depend on the use case.

We utilize Azure Cosmos DB, which has a distinct architecture compared to other services. Initially, we were concerned about the high costs associated with it since every document incurs charges due to Azure's containerization of every collection. However, we discovered that running it in a single container eliminates this cost.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is hosting web applications which can be Linux or Windows-based. Microsoft Azure App Service is a multi-tenant environment where customers can load and run the application. It is similar to a platform as a service.

The most valuable feature is the ability to scale the application. It scales dynamically and comes with two features. If you can find a fabulous feature in the Azure Functions app, it allows you to scale, so you don't need to worry about manually scaling or setting any scaling parameters. Then it automatically does the scaling on its own.

The other feature comes with VNet integration. So we can connect the Microsoft Azure App Service to a VNet so that it can privately communicate with other resources within Azure with a private IP. It also comes with the CDN feature, which can automatically load in some of your configuration files and use it instead of going back to storage to pick that up. It also has awesome features like backup, so you don't need to set up a recovery service, as it automatically does that. So you can back up the existing state of your application in case of any loss. In a nutshell, it has dynamic tools.

The outbound connectivity is not great but can be improved because, on virtual machines, the Microsoft Azure App Service uses four or five outbound IPs. So basically, if you want to communicate with an external source, you can use outbound IPs. For example, you must whitelist the outbound IP when communicating with an SQL database externally. However, because it's a multi-tenant environment and other customer applications are being shared on a skills tab, there are always limitations in the smart port. So each customer has a particular allocated smart port, which they should exhaust. It helps to work with the code. Regardless of features like a firewall where they have a hub and an environment they have features like a front door which can increase the smart port's limits to about 64,000. Hence, it will be good to have one IP without needing to add any other infrastructure.

Additionally, they can improve scaling the typical environment in terms of scalability. I believe the limit for the multi-tenant environment is about 20 to 30 maximum on the PV3. So if they can increase that, other than having these significant scaling limits for the Microsoft Azure App Service environment, which is about 200, that will also help.

Also, dedicating one outbound IP for App Service will go a long way.

We have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

They have a good support team. We don't think the front-end support is of concern because the front end has to talk to the internal respective application engineering team. Sometimes the core platform issues may take about two months or more. They can answer your queries, and they can help you do investigations.

Additionally, depending on your support package, if you have a premium plan, you get the best because you have support engineers who are intelligent. But you get different services with the pro-direct support plan. There's miscommunication between the front end and the application engineering team. I think that's something that they need to improve. On a premium plan, you get excellent support. I rate support for pro-direct a six out of ten and premium support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. You can set it up through the portal, a template, or Terraform. It integrates with other features like Docker so if you have your image in Docker Hub or ECR, you can select the image, and it pulls those images in and runs your application.

It has many features, and other deployment methods like Bitbucket, FTP, DevOps, and GitLab can integrate these things into Microsoft Azure App Service. It is easy to set up because you don't need to start building servers. We also don't need to complete any maintenance. 

The price of this solution is competitive. It works as an App Service plan so you can have multiple App Services that are part of a plan. So, for example, you can have about 10 App Services in an App Service plan. It's like a VM, where you have different applications running and you are not charged for all of the applications. However, you are being charged for the plan, so I think it's worth having that setup. At the same time, you need to plan how your costs will be and their ranges of variations. As we call it, SKU is where you can easily factor in so it is okay in terms of price.

One of the best products is the Functions app, which comes with serverless computing in the sense that it gives you about a million transactions for free every month. That is one of the cheapest. So you don't need to worry about how long your function triggers, just that if it scales more than that and performs more transactions, you get charged for it. The exact cost depends on the SKUs.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use this solution for everything I do. We use it on e-commerce platforms and for business activities. Currently, we're using the latest version of the App. However, we used the e-commerce version between 2019 and 2020.

The most valuable feature is the Power Apps because it is very user-friendly. In comparison, the Logic Apps and Azure functions are very robust.

I can't pinpoint a specific feature that can be included in the next release because Microsoft is making new changes to the app every day. Currently, everything works perfectly. 

We have been using this solution for five years. I am a Cloud Solution Architect with TCS, primarily on the Azure front. I research different types of Power Apps. I focus on POCs and deal with architecture data.

This solution is stable as we haven't faced problems working with it yet.

This solution is scalable.

I can't comment on my experience with the customer service and support team because we connect directly with Microsoft whenever we have any issues.

Positive

It is easy to set up if you have experience and knowledge working with it, but the setup is complex if you have no experience. 

Regarding pricing, I can't comment on pricing because I don't deal with issues related to pricing. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. My advice would be to gain experience, get an MSN license and practice before working in production environments.

We mostly use Microsoft Azure App Service for websites, such as content management systems, WordPress, and others, which are built on Azure Web Repair and App Services.

I like that it's a ready-to-use, out-of-the-box solution that provides all of the necessary functions for customers, such as codes that can be quickly switched from the production version, or from test and DEV versions to production. 

Quote backup and restore vertical and horizontal scaling, and DEV scaling are all available. In this case, developers do not need to learn and spend their time on the configuration for the platform, just coding and asking to compute, which they need and that configuration, which platform provides them.

Price could be reduced.

Particularly with Azure Web Apps. According to their current architecture, moving services from one Azure subscription to another is difficult.

Customers can consume the Azure platform through a variety of subscriptions from various partners, financial visions, current political visions, and so on. Some services on the Microsoft Azure platform can be moved automatically from one subscription to another based on security and financial rules, while others cannot.

Azure Web Apps are the type of service that does not automatically move from subscription to subscription, and region to region. A lot of manual labor must be performed by their organization, customer, and engineers, if necessary.

They must pay too much attention to how to plan this, how to switch off, switch on, on which days, at what times, and so on. A lot of administrative work is done, but it's not very good. 

It would be fantastic if Microsoft morphed after my exit service, removing it from subscriptions and moving it to different regions, especially for that service.

I have used Microsoft Azure App Service for the last 12 months.

Because it is cloud-based, there is only one version.

Microsoft Azure App Service is stable. It's good enough. it's present here, but anyone can take it if it's needed. Especially now, Microsoft offers a very special support program in Ukraine. For example, if a customer needs to support their business processes, they can use any Azure solution for free until the end of the calendar year.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a scalable solution.

We are a technical support team, and we handle all of our support needs. We have not contacted technical support.

I am Microsoft-certified trained. This is why I don't require any additional support assistance; I train others. In other words, every Microsoft commercial partner receives direct Microsoft support. For example, Amazon provides additional information from the traditional partner channel, or by extra support, through premier support contracts. All of them must be present on a commercial basis in order to provide truly high-quality services to customers.

I am a technical architect and I have some commercial partners. I work as a system integrator. It is a software, global company that specializes in delivering cloud software, solutions, and services. As for this, I have over 25 years of experience with all stacks, including Azure, AWS, Google GCP, Oracle Cloud, and others. I was very interested in the Zimbra and Microsoft Exchange compilation because, in my opinion, based on my experience and statistics, Zimbra is not widely used in our accounting and based installation. However, one commercial customer inquired about my thoughts on Zimbra in conjunction with Exchange. It was very unfamiliar to me, which is why I attempted to conduct independent research on Zimbra solutions. Who and how are relevant to that question. I don't think we'll implement Zimbra because it's outside of our stack, but it was very interesting to get some perspective on the questions, nothing special, just vision and experience and growth.

We use what our customers requested from the Microsoft stacks, which are mostly infrastructure as a service solutions. It is a very limited number of PaaS installations or implementations, such as Aurora or Microsoft SQL, Azure SQL as a service, web applications on Azure, and so on. Of course, SaaS, such as Office 365, is a good option, but I can't say what other options aren't because the Microsoft stack is our primary commercial platform for our sources. It's fantastic; it provides us with some commercial advantages.

We recently used Azure, virtual machines, virtual networks, and virtual storage, as well as Azure IaaS Stack, Azure Virtual Machines, and Azure Storage.

Because Azure Web Services is based on the Azure IaaS Stack, it is infrastructure as a service. It's a platform as a service that's based on IaaS for some purposes, but our customers don't need the services to bring ready-to-use apps because they don't have a lot of education and institutes. Overall, Qualys solutions are not widely used in Ukraine, for example, by schools, governments, and institutes, due to commercial issues and, in particular, our notice time.

We chose Microsoft Azure App Service because the customer inquired. We are a very commercial company, and if the market or the customer did not request it, we did not provide it. If the customer requests it, we will provide it.

I don't recall any problems with the initial setup at the time because I believe it was adequate. I didn't hear anything about widespread or public knowledge of some issues in that area.

Most importantly, not too much. The customer has a high level of financial maturity to value DPI; they do not discuss ROI or other metrics. They simply book on current, can say spending, if current model spending is adequate.

Price could always be cheaper.

It is not about the license fees, but rather about the pay-as-you-go services.

Customers consume varying amounts of quality services and pay roughly the same amount. Where there are different customer sizes, some customers consume $5,000 US dollars per month. I have some customers who pay and consume more than $20,000 US dollars per month, for example. It is determined by customer sizes and requirements, which vary from month to month.

I would advise paying closer attention to the architecture of the solutions. If the architecture is well designed, this will be a very good placement on cloud solutions; otherwise, it will be placed incorrectly. It's a common situation, and owing too much money as it should be.

I would rate Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

We are a Microsoft partner.

I use this solution to learn about the application development technology and platform and be able to recommend it to my employer.

I'ts not being used yet.

I particularly appreciate that this is a very straightforward and easy solution to use.

I would like to see some significant improvement in the technical support provision for this solution. 

I have been working with this solution for around six months.

I have found this to be a mostly stable solution during my time using it.

This is a very easily scalable solution with practically unlimited growth potential.

The technical support for this solution is terrible.  I regularly experience delays in response times when I raise and issue, and have often had occasions when no response at all has been given.

Negative

The initial setup of this solution is very straightforward.

I implemented this solution myself, as it is for personal use.

I would recommend that potential users of this solution enroll in some kind of formal training, perhaps from a Microsoft partner. They should also be prepared to keep up with the regular changes applied to this platform.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.