Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

The tool helps manage microservices by providing developers with a platform to conduct tests and assessments on the web application. The custom domain option is one of the most valuable features I've found. This feature is incredibly helpful for the end-users of the web application. With the custom domain feature, you can change the lengthy link to a shorter, more memorable one. For example, instead of using a lengthy default link, you can customize it to something like imail.com, which is much easier to remember and share.

It also comes with a DNS feature. The tool is easy to integrate with other platforms. 

The tool's pricing could be improved. 

I have been using the tool for a year. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is stable. 

The tool is scalable. My company has two users. 

I haven't contacted technical support yet. 

We use the tool's basic subscription. Its licensing costs are monthly. 

In our setup, we host our web application on Azure. Our developer team manages the development and maintenance of the application. When it comes to resource management and scalability features, there can be noticeable impacts on website performance based on the subscription level. For instance, with the basic subscription, the response time of your website may be slower compared to higher-tier subscriptions like premium. I rate the overall product a six out of ten. 

I use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for publishing.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF).

We got other additional application delivery controllers. Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful. Some websites are published through an application delivery controller, which is not Azure or Microsoft. Having a standard implementation across the IT landscape is what we're trying to address at the moment.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for three years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

We previously used Citrix NetScaler.

The solution’s initial setup was straightforward.

The solution can be implemented in a couple of hours.

We've implemented Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for web traffic management in our organization for inbound HTTPS access.

We use a standard app service plan on the back end. We're talking about some 6,000 to 7,000 concurrent connections, and we haven't faced any scaling issues so far.

The web application firewall feature has proven most beneficial for our security and load-balancing needs. There was a compliance and security requirement to enable OWASP. That's why we enabled SQL injection and other features on WAF.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for its ease of configuration and management. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a great product, and I would encourage everyone to use it if they have a presence in Azure.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

We use the product as an application firewall for Layer 7 security instead of directly exposing applications on any computing platform to the internet. It has enhanced security compliance for our environment.

The product's most important feature is WAF. Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable. It allows you to route traffic to different backend services based on the specific URLs requested from the load balancer.

The product could be easier to use and implement.

We have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for a year and a half.

I rate the software's stability a seven out of ten.

The product works well in terms of scalability. It is suitable for small and medium businesses. However, it costs extra to increase the number of instances. I rate the scalability as eight or nine.

I encounter technical issues related to tunning. I resolve them myself with helpful documentation.

The complexity of the initial setup process and the deployment time depend on different scenarios. I rate the process a six for complex projects and seven for straightforward projects. It includes configuring rules using infrastructure records. It takes approximately two days to two weeks to complete. It requires a lot of time in case of extensive debugging and fine-tuning.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

The product is good to use, integrating with a DDoS attack prevention tool. It would be good to compare it with CentOs as it is easy to use with an efficient setup combining CDN rules and DDoS protection.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a nine out of ten.

We are using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway which hosted our domain as a load balancer. We have an application visible to the public and the traffic passes through this solution.

The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management.

The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for approximately three years.

We have had some issues with the stability.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

We have approximately 600 requests from one balancer and a total of 3,000 requests.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

I rate support from Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a four out of ten.

Neutral

I have used a solution prior to  Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The implementation of the solution was complex, it took a few hours to complete.

I rate the initial setup of  Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a four out of ten.

It's really useful, and I have used it for API applications as well as web applications. Apart from that, you can write your custom rules. 

I have widely used it for applications. It's good if you have a single application, as well as a number of applications. You can have one application and configure everything in one application gateway. 

Microsoft can work on it as the pooling size as the max pool size is two hundred. Sometimes, when there's heavy traffic, it gives a bad gateway error. 

If you are using a third party application and have network constraints, you can use the API in your network and then create a proxy out of it. It is URL-based. 

The solution's integration is very good.

The troubleshooting feature is also good, as it gives you a fair amount of permission.

Microsoft needs to work on their documentation.

The scalability needs improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for almost four years. 

It is a highly stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution can be made more scalable. 

The technical support team is quick in their responses.

Positive

The initial setup is complex at the beginner level due to lack of documents. 

The solution is reasonably priced. 

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

We use the product in front-end and back-end applications to do the load balancing smartly. 

The product's performance should be better. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's stability an eight out of ten. 

The tool's scalability is good. My company has 500 users for the solution. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's support could be faster. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's setup is neither complex nor easy. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We're using it to expose our application but the main purpose is to make use of the web in a location.

We have increased the security so now our infrastructure is more secure. And  all the inbound traffic is passing through the WAF and not our application because we have some APIs,  based on the encryption apps. So we are changing on the previous load balancer with this application gateway.

The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable.

The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules.

The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. 

The price of the solution can be reduced a bit.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is a stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The customer support team is not very good. I rate them six out of ten.

The initial setup is simple.

The price of the solution can be reduced a bit. 

We are migrating to the application gateway, not to the reduce the cost. We are migrating because we want to reduce the latency to the user.

I recommend the solution if you want to review the response time. So you need to understand why did you want to use it and if your application matches with the other source.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

Our client is using three to four applications. One use case is with the integration layer, which has the website running on the web app. It interacts with different applications and with their on-premise SAP solution as well. This app service works as an integration layer between the SAP solution and other different applications. The solution also has its patient application running, which is the patient appointment system, since our client is a healthcare organization. That separate application also runs on App Service and is deployed on Application Gateway.

I find its Application Gateway's WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks.

Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port. But I believe they are working on it.

Another shortcoming is that the maximum permissive size for the request body size is two MB, and it needs to be increased up to five MB or more. Some other third-party solutions or even AWS provides better request body size in this regard.

I would like to see some more features in WAF with the next release to make it more competitive with leading web solution providers. When we compare the WAF with other solutions like F5’s WAF, Application Gateway’s WAF has fewer features.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten. It took us four or five months to optimize the solution.

I rate Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten because it is very good. It has an autoscale feature. The solution is being used on close to 200 endpoints. My client is a medium-sized healthcare business.

Sometimes customer support puts issues in loops, where they take us through L1 and L2, and it takes some time to get to the right person who can address the issue.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup an eight-point-five out of ten because it is easy. Deploying the solution takes a day or so, but all the configurations, working with the application team, and optimizations take time. Usually, it takes three to four days.

While deploying the solution, we gathered application data first, such as the URLs which we needed to run the app services, health probe ports, the certificates from the customer, and any custom flash rules which may need to be created. We gathered all the information from the customer and the customer's development teams.

I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this. The product's price is good considering the set of features it provides. There is no cost in licensing, but they charge us based on the size of the application gateway, the data being transferred, and the gateway's scalability.

The solution's app service and application gateway took us eight months to implement. It's a huge infrastructure.

If you are considering using Application Gateway, you have to understand the application flow thoroughly. If it will be an integration layer where you might face a lot of issues, counseling with the developers and the customer's teams is very important. The solution requires optimization from the WAF perspective as well as timeouts and other settings. It may take some time to stabilize. The product is stable, but I rate it a seven out of ten based on the features I've seen in competitors, like third-party dedicated WAF solutions, which provide a lot more flexibility and features to their customers. However, they are more costly. And when you have to design scalable solutions, they cost a lot more.