Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

Our primary use case for this solution is for hosting web apps so people can deploy this application and host it on an app service.

We have found the scalability feature most valuable. When you host an application on Microsoft Azure App Service and have a lot of users, there are times that there will be high traffic. High traffic is when many people try to access the Microsoft Azure App Service simultaneously. So Microsoft Azure App Service can scale up to meet the demand of those trying to access it. It has been at approximately 98% availability, and if any maintenance is required, it will notify you. You can find an alternative solution and use multiple instances to mitigate the downtime.

For now, I don't think there are any improvements to highlight.

We have been using this solution for approximately a year and a half.

We have had a fun experience with customer service and support, but sometimes customer service and support can be challenging. However, all the challenges we face are related to technology.

There are two options for setting up the CLI shop and the portal. In terms of the portal, you can easily create an app service from the Azure portal. Some people are comfortable using the CLI shop, and some don't like going to the portal and creating the app service. I believe Azure did very well in that aspect.

The pricing is quite fair because of its scalability. Before you choose the type of plan you want, you should look at the workloads that the apps have and what your organization needs. For example, if you have minimal traffic, you can use the basic plan. There's a plan for every type of workload which determines the subscription cost.

I rate this solution nine out of ten. The solution is good. If somebody is considering using Microsoft Azure App Service, it is the best because it's easy to use, and there's a plan for every type of workload. Some features can give you certificates for the domain. If you already have an existing domain, you can bring it in to do it from Azure. Additionally, you can buy your domain and bind it to Azure, but if you already have an existing third-party domain, you can also use it with Azure.

Our primary use case for this solution is hosting applications such as function apps, web apps or API. The solution is deployed on cloud.

The ability to scale the App Service is very valuable. It allows you to host your App Service on Azure and provides the ability to bypass online. Additionally, it offers the ability to autoscale. That ability to scale out the infrastructure or the instances hosting the application is also a very good advantage in Azure which is cost-effective.

The solution can be improved by increasing the number of data centres worldwide.

We have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 1,000 people are currently using it across major sites.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. I rate the service provided a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is neither easy nor difficult. However, it is simplified because documentation is provided to guide you. The documentation instructs how to host the applications and manage operations. In addition, the documentation aids in training and familiarizing people with the platform's requirements. 

There are different licensing options available, and we use the pay-as-you-go option. A student subscription is available with its requirements, other payment plans, and additional support. A free trial option is available to try out the platform and see how it works before subscribing.

We chose this solution because we support Microsoft Azure.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by increasing the number of data centres worldwide. I advise future users to understand how to use the platform and utilize the documentation provided online, which offers guidance.

One use case was to host the Azure Bot logic code. The Bot logic was hosted on an App Service instance. The other use case was a POC where we were lifting and shifting a monolithic application, a .NET monolithic application, onto the cloud.

The most valuable feature is that it's an ideal solution when it comes to lifting and shifting monolithic applications from on-premises to Azure Cloud. It allows for a quick shift into the cloud without having to analyze and design very specific infrastructure and services for monolithic applications hosted primarily on-premises. Let's say that the team does not want to really redesign monoliths in a microservices-based application and that they want to make a quick move towards adopting the cloud tech stack. Then, Microsoft Azure App Service is probably the best option.

In terms of room for improvement, ease of deployment would be an area that needs some focus. Azure does provide out-of-the-box deployment features, but I found that deploying to an App Service instance can be better in terms of more tools that could be available to perform a deployment.

I've been using this solution since 2020.

It is deployed on a virtual network on Azure.

It is stable, but it really depends on the workload that is being shifted and the base service plan that is selected. Because though it is a platform as a service, you do have the option to design a service plan that is adequate for your applications, performance needs, and overall traffic that hits your applications. In terms of it being a platform-as-a-service feature, it is quite stable.

It is scalable. The user base for the Bot service application was about 400 to 500 users worldwide.

The technical support is average, and I would give them a six out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and can be done quickly depending on the number of applications being deployed. A single application should not take more than a couple of minutes to deploy.

The cost depends on the App Service plan that you choose. There are a number of tiers available.

If you have a standard enterprise application, for example, for the sake of simplicity, a single server with 50 requests per second, trying to do a lift and shift to App Service is probably a good idea. Bot framework solutions generally tend to use App Service for custom Bot logic, for hosting the custom Bots and the custom logic for Bots. App Service is probably a bit easier in terms of implementation compared to that of other options.

However, for high performance applications that have a heavy load on them and are expected to perform at a certain level of response time, a pure lift and shift to App Service will not work well. You would probably need to choose a higher tier of App Service with a good App Service plan with a certain number of underlying host servers that are servicing it.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure App Service at six on a scale from one to ten.

We use this solution in a very large number of areas, such as for functional apps, web apps, to trigger HTTP requests, for web API integration. This solution has a vast array of features.

The feature I find most valuable is the 'Diagnose and Solve problem' function. This not only allows us to fix a problem, but also to generate analytics on why the issue occurred.

I also find the application insight feature to be essential for use in our production environment.

I would like to see some improvement in the UI/UX design, to make navigation of this solution more user friendly. For example, it could contain more explicit information on each of the features.

There should also be some development on the architectural flow of this product, to show application dependencies across the network. This would help with fixing issues that may impact other areas.

We have been using this solution for four years.

We have found this to be a fairly stable solution so far.

This is an easily scalable solution.

The technical support for this product is very good, with SLA's provided for when issues are raised. There is also a lot of online support available through the Microsoft community pages, forums, and downloadable guides.

Positive

The initial setup of this solution isn't complex, but it is time consuming. There is a lot of documentation to go through before implementing this solution, to ensure that it is fit for purpose once deployed.

The pricing for this solution is set in tiers, with the overall cost depending on the features that are required. I would advise organizations to have a detailed look at the functions they need, to ensure that they are in the correct pricing tier.

I would rate this solution an eight 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 use Azure App Service for both app development and deployment. Sometimes, we use it for testing, and we also have several products running in production on the platform.

One valuable feature of Azure App Service for us is its integration with Azure DevOps, which we heavily rely on in our development process. It is user-friendly once you understand how it works, although getting to that point can be a challenge. Additionally, Azure App Service offers excellent integration with Microsoft infrastructure and developer solutions.

In terms of improvement, the technical support could be better.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure App Service for almost six years.

We have faced reliability issues due to configuration issues on our end, not the technology itself. While Azure App Service provides information on problems, sometimes it is not sufficient, and resolving issues can be time-consuming.

In terms of scalability, we haven't encountered any issues with Azure App Service. 

The support I have received, mostly from individuals in India, hasn't been very helpful. They tend to send long emails with lots of links, which often don't directly address my specific issue. This can be frustrating and time-consuming, as it doesn't efficiently solve the problem at hand. Azure App Service might offer better support with higher-priced plans, but those might be too costly for smaller external companies like ours. I would rate the support as a three out of ten.

Negative

I have used SolarWinds along with Azure App Service for web application development.

Installing Azure App Service has been challenging at times. Whether deploying through Azure pipelines or directly from Azure, the process can be time-consuming due to configuration complexities. We have encountered instances where resolving issues took days or even two to three weeks to complete the deployment.

Microsoft offers various pricing plans and licensing options, which initially seem reasonable, especially for small companies like ours. However, as we grow, the pricing can become less flexible. We pay for Azure monthly, while some licenses, like the Action Pack, are paid annually.

Overall, I would rate Azure App Service as an eight out of ten. It is a good tool but could be more user-friendly.

We are a reseller of Microsoft services and deliver this product to our customers. 

It is for hosting web and mobile applications and data. When we are integrating different applications, we need to connect them with Microsoft Azure services for integration.

We like that it's a close environment where we can do a lot of things. It integrates well across Microsoft products. 

It's stable. Microsoft recently announced it will be adding a local cloud into the UAE.

The solution can scale.

They need to be more transparent in terms of the scalability of the product. It's not clear how many users can use it in tandem. The non-functional information about the platform should also be readily available. 

Unlike AWS, which has many offerings, Microsoft's choices are more limited. AWS also has manuals and videos in order to clarify how things work. Microsoft needs more of that. 

Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not yet have local in-country clouds. 

The solution is somewhat expensive. They have a lot of competition from open-source rivals and need to make their offering more competitive somehow. 

My background is in Microsoft technology, and I have been working with Microsft for five years and with this particular solution for almost three years. 

It's extremely stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't had any issues with scaling just yet. I haven't hit any limitations. We work with both SMEs and enterprises, and it has met the needs of both. 

I handle pre-sales of software and therefore do not deal with technical support. 

It is moderately easy to deploy. A company would require some technical help or know-how. There's maybe 50% complexity in general. Half is hard, half is easy. 

Our support team is able to assist clients in setting up the solution. 

The price is relatively high compared to other platforms. I can't speak to the exact pricing, however. 

There may be some ancillary services that may cost more. They don't have a comprehensive plan, yet they charge for everything. 

We're a partner.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.