Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

We are using Microsoft Azure App Service in the government sector.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure App Service is customization. It provides the building block from its modularity. You can add what you need with the appropriate code.

Microsoft Azure App Service could improve by having better integration and connectivity with other platforms. The solution has good integration with other large companies' solutions but there are smaller service platforms companies where there could be integrated better.

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

The Microsoft Azure App Service platform is stable. We have a business continuity plan and we need our services to be always on.

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

Microsoft Azure App Service is scalable.

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

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service was easy. There was a logical path in how to do it. I have a development environment because I'm using Dynamics 365.

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

The pricing model of Microsoft Azure App Service could be made more clear. There is a scale and range and it can be complicated and convoluted. Some simplification is needed.

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

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service an eight 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. 

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.

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 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 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 Azure App Service as an application deployment environment. It allows me to access the FTB directly in deployed applications and change certain rules and regulations like filtering of access management.

The best feature is scalability, which allows you to target potential clients worldwide by connecting the application to a local server. This makes the application readily accessible, and the response time will be much better.

If you're on the cloud, you just get a web interface without much detail for additional configuration or the authority to configure the root or system-level configuration. This is a weakness in the cloud version compared to desktop. In the next release, Microsoft should provide additional options for configuring the deployment environment.

I've been using this solution for three to four years.

This is a stable solution.

Scalability is one of this solution's strongest points.

Microsoft's technical support meets expectations - sometimes there's a bug on their side, and we have some downtime, but it's usually minimal. However, there are some issues with technical staff passing cases on instead of dealing with them.

Neutral

Azure App Service is expensive compared to its competitors, especially its cloud-only version. I would rate their pricing as two out of five.

I would rate Azure App Services as eight out of ten.

One of our reasons to use the product is its cloud service. Our usage is mainly on the cloud and we like the benefits that we can get from the cloud. You can easily do the literal shift of your application easily. You can jump into the cloud very quickly. 

If you are not using the product properly, then it can cost you a lot of money. Hence, you need to make sure that you choose the services wisely. You need to make sure that you have a budget and have some alerts associated with it. The tool's cost can easily go high if you don't consider these things properly. You need to review your existing subscription.  

I have been working with the product for more than two years. 

The product is quite stable. 

The solution is scalable both vertical and horizontal. You should be specific about the Linux or Windows environment. 

The tool's support is good. Sometimes, you need to make sure of the people who are supporting you. Microsoft support can get delayed easily. You need to be in regular contact with the account managers of your account on the Microsoft side so that you can escalate things. Typically, we don't use support and use it only for production issues which require urgency. 

Neutral

The tool's setup is easy since there is a lot of free documentation from Microsoft available. You need to be part of the training as well. The tool's deployment is super quick and gets completed in five minutes. 

The solution is worth its money. 

I would rate the product's pricing a five out of ten and is subscription based. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. I would advise people to go with the trial version since you can use most of the functionality in the trial version.