Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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.

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 solution for isolation and load balancing.

The solution offers the ability to scale the bandwidth in real-time and observability.

The product should improve its cost-to-performance ratio.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for 18 months.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

All Azure services have the same support. There is no specific support. There is a similar team for all components and tickets. They need to do a much better job. The quality and speed of support should be improved.

Neutral

The initial setup takes a few minutes.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product is expensive.

I advise other users to monitor their usage and not build unnecessary gateways.

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

We are using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for load balancing and for an additional layer of security.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for approximately six months.

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

The scalability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is great and can be done automatically.

We are doing approximately 10,000 requests per second.

The wait time for a response from the support can be too long. Additionally, we have called repeatedly and we did not have a good experience.

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

Neutral

I used Imprivata OneSign and F5 prior to switching to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway because of the better cloud performance.

I rate the price of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight out of ten.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is simple when you follow the instructions.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight 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 is for securing traffic. It provides security against OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, so there is a V2 WAF App gateway. 

This product works well to secure my public facing websites from things like sql injections

The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful.

It is a bit tricky to configure in the UI. You've got to configure front end back end ports ips and the  map the listeners & rules for single or multi sites to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure a pre-defined configuration Mapping the certificates from key vault. I think this would make app-gateway much better although it is a very good secure product. Automating this end to end takes a bit of of time to work out but once its done its very secure.

I used it within the last six months. 

Its stability is pretty good. I've had it running now for about six months. 

It scales pretty well. Its availability seems pretty good. As long as you set the metrics right, it will scale efficiently.

Their support is all right. Microsoft's support has covered it pretty well. I would rate them a four out of five.

It is a bit tricky to configure, but once you do it, it is all right. Its configuration is a bit tricky in terms of getting the rules right. You got to get the rules right, and you got to get the endpoints right. The backend is easy enough to configure, but you need to get the rules right. 

The mapping of the certificate got to be done in a very specific way for it to work. Once the certificate is there, pulling that certificate is easy enough, but you've got to map it manually because the configuration settings are quite tricky to do. You've to basically do it in the UI. I've had to do that a couple of times, so I've got it perfect in automation.

I would advise going for OWASP Top 10 filtering. It is a must-have for V2 WAF security.

Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten. It is a good product, and once you get it configured, it does work well.

We are using it for application load balancing and scaling.

It has a filter available, although we are not currently using it because it is not part of our requirements. But it is a good option and when it becomes part of our requirements we will definitely use it. 

It takes a lot of time for a certificate to update in the system. That is a huge drawback, affecting the load-balancing side. And when there are changes to the load balancing, it affects the end-user.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application for the last six months.

I think the scalability is okay, but I haven't tried to scale it.

Application Gateway is tied into our applications. We have about 5,000 connections into Application Gateway, on average. There are around 800 to 900 requests per minute.

I have not had to contact Microsoft tech support about Azure Application Gateway.

Previously, we were in AWS. We just migrated to Azure. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you compare it with AWS, it's a little bit complicated, but overall, the technical aspects are very simple.

A normal Application Gateway deployment takes around 20 to 25 minutes, but again, the application of certificate changes takes around 20 to 25 minutes, so the total time involved is about one hour.

We did not use a third-party. Currently, I'm the only person handling the solution in our company. My main task in Application Gateway is configuration, as it's a service that is provided by Azure. There is not much more for me to do than configure it.

Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS. Our main implementation strategy is based around the pricing. If there are any technical features that we need to consider in addition, we will. If the prices for those additional features are okay then we will use them.

The features in both AWS and Azure seem to be comparable. We are enabling all the security features that were available in AWS. 

From my few months of experience with Azure, the configuration changes we are making in Application Gateway, such as a certificate change, are taking more time to apply to the service. In AWS it was very quick. It would take less than one minute, but here it takes almost 10 minutes to apply that certificate. That time difference is huge. That is the only drawback or issue that I have faced with the Azure Application Gateway. 

Other than that, the two services look the same.

There are two versions of Application Gateway. Version 2 is a seven out of 10. I would rate version 1 at three to four out of 10.

Application Gateway is a tool service that provides high availability, redundancy, and load balancing for deployed applications on the cloud.

Application Gateway is cost-effective and has autoscaling. We can autoscale it.

The application gateway is good, but performance improvement in the containerization environment is needed. 

The traffic that relies on HTTP for a website is being manually configured to HTTPS. This process should be automated. If the protocol is HTTP, it should automatically redirect to HTTPS.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for one and a half years.

The stability is acceptable, but we are encountering issues configuring the container environment. Apart from that, the performance is satisfactory.

 I rate the solution’s stability as seven out of ten, but I rate it as nine out of ten for normal applications.

We have over three hundred customers, most of whom utilize Azure Application Gateway. Some are in the government sector, while others are in the private sector.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

Microsoft's support is lacking. Their technical expertise seems insufficient, and when issues arise, the support personnel often request screenshots and provide only minimal information. Despite numerous emails and interactions with various technical support personnel, the initial support experience is subpar. The response is very fast, but they're not technical questions, as we need.

Positive

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten for technical users and an eight out of ten for non-technical users. It's a one-time application. However, once configured, it becomes very easy to manage. Deployment takes 20-30 minutes, depending on the number of applications and servers we are configuring.

The product is cheap.

A WAF, a robust firewall solution, has been built into the Azure portal. Two models are available. The WAF is also integrated with the Application Gateway, providing comprehensive security for your cloud applications.

This security feature applies to traditional VM applications running on VMs and extends to autoscaling nodes in containerized environments.

The Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a highly beneficial and flexible feature for facilitating the development of our applications and obtaining necessary certifications, thus sustaining our business operations. It offers scalability and high availability, which are crucial for meeting our growing needs. The Application Gateway serves as the sole solution for providing these capabilities, eliminating the need for developing such features in-house. It's an all-in-one solution that perfectly fulfills our requirements.

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

The product is an underlying part of our front-door solution.

We are satisfied with the solution. The load balancing features are valuable. We faced some issues before. The product acts as an extra layer to prevent attacks. We haven't had the problem since.

We had to switch the tool once. We faced some downtime while validating CNAME. We could not validate it before the switch. It was annoying, but it was not that big of a problem.

I have been using the solution for five years.

We did the configuration and management through Terraform. It is an infrastructure as code tool. It made the deployment a little bit easier. I also tried doing it manually. It was quite a lot of work to have the right settings and get it going, especially if you're learning the tool. Once you know it, you will figure out what to do. We just have to study the solution.

The learning curve was not that steep. The vendor did a pretty good job. I remember using documentation to learn it. It was okay. Sometimes, we have to figure things out. Sometimes, the videos are outdated. I know how hard it is to keep it up to date with a continuously improving product.

We are using the basic version. The product satisfies our needs. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.