Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

I primarily use the solution during application deployments. I use it to protect the applications.

The solution offers good protection of applications during deployment. It makes the deployment of applications that are on Azure fairly straightforward.

The solution is easy to set up.

The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible. They need to work on it so that it's much easier to configure the solution so that it works how we need it to. It needs to be customizable.

The firewall portion of the gateway is very basic. It needs to be improved upon. It needs to be more robust.

I've been using the solution for a while now.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. We've enjoyed the level of stability provided by the product.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it out a bit, it should be able to do so easily. It's not hard to do so if you need to.

We have about 40 people who are currently using the solution within our organization.

We've dealt with technical support in the past moreso in relation to the cloud solution. They helped us with some technical aspects and we found them to be quite helpful. We're satisfied with the level of support that we've been given so far.

I also have experience with Radware, Fortinet, and Check Point, among other solutions. We use a variety of different solutions within our organization.

The initial setup is not overly complex, to be honest. For our organization, it was quite an easy setup. It was straightforward. A company shouldn't struggle with getting it up and running.

Depending on the configuration, I can handle a deployment over the course of one day or so.

I was able to handle the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of a consultant or integrator.

We're partners with Microsoft.

While, at this moment, Azure is only on the public cloud at this moment, the applications are all deployed on-premises.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. Overall, we've had a good experience.

I would rate this product at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for exposing services to the internet. We are Microsoft partners and I am the company's consultant for Azure Cloud Infra & Apps.

I think the WAF feature is valuable, it replicates your firewall. It's one of the features in the application gateway and that's in a layer 7-based firewall with layer 7-based features. We use this feature a lot in the application gateway.

Scalability can be a bit of an issue although it's better in v2. I'd also like to see increased flexibility. There are limits when you want to share an application gateway across multiple clusters. I know Microsoft is working on that, but we don't know when it will be finished and released to the public.

I've been using this solution for around seven years. 

This is a stable product. 

As mentioned, there are some issues with scalability which will hopefully be solved soon. We have many customers using this solution that have more than 100 application gateways.

Technical support is fine - we have a lot of interaction with Microsoft Corp in Seattle. We help improve their products by participating in a few programs and testing features to improve their functionality and reviewing the end product. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward, deployment took a couple of hours. We're consultants so we do it ourselves. 

Because of our partnership with Microsoft we have an input Microsoft first policy. If none of their solutions are applicable or available, then we look to another solution, but that is not the case here. 

I would recommend this solution. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use it for load balancing and web application firewall. We are using the latest version. We also have version 2.

Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable.

It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for more than two years. 

We haven't really tried to scale it much. We have several users in our organization.

We don't need any support at this moment in time. If needed, we also get Microsoft to support us.

It is not that straightforward. There are some issues with the latest application gateway. Deployment is easy and takes only 30-45 minutes, but there are some issues with its configuration.   

I deployed it myself along with other colleagues. 

It is not expensive.

I would recommend this solution depending on the customers' requirements. We have a discussion with the customer and then offer the solution. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a seven out of ten. 

We primarily used the solution to try to protect a few internet-facing applications that we had.

The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs.

The functionality needs a lot of improvement.

The security of the product could be adjusted.

The scalability needs improvement.

Overall, it just wasn't a great product. It was lacking in a lot of areas.

Just watching the industry, it could be that Microsoft, is going to have to give more resources to it in order to make it work. Microsoft knows a lot about software. They're going to have to get more resources into it and add people and time to it to make it competitive. They may even need to consider some sort of acquisition to bring in new tech. Right now, the solution just isn't there in terms of what is needed and expected.

The solution simply has to be more comparable to other leading product s at this point. It's just lacking the overall intelligence to compete.

We've been playing around with the solution for about a year at this point.

The stability is good from the standpoint of it works like it was intended to work. That said, it's not really functional enough to be able to have any type of confidence in it. If stability for a company just means that it stands there and it does what it's supposed to do, then, from that standpoint, it's stable.

In terms of scalability, we looked at a lot of different things, and put a lot of work in, including meeting with Microsoft. However, truth be told, we know and Microsoft knows that the product is just not where it needs to be. It's not a secret. Therefore, I wouldn't say it's completely scalable.

Currently, there may be a few hundred people on the solution.

Microsoft has been with us throughout the process, and they've been pretty good from a technical support standpoint. We're satisfied with the level of service we have been provided.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It wasn't complex.

In terms of the configuration, one of the things users have to understand is that the configuration is very specific. Our knowledge may have slowed the process, however, I don't think it was a bad configuration process. We probably got it done and then tested it over the course of a month, or a few months, or so. That was just testing. Looking at everything within the configuration for what we needed only takes - it end to end - a day.

It doesn't take a genius to get everything up and running. You need a technical person that can follow the directions because you do have things outside of the software that has to be considered, however, it really doesn't take a genius to do it.

We only need three people to maintain the solution and deploy any updates.

I don't handle the billing aspect of the solution, therefore I don't know anything about the licensing costs for it.

We're a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We tend to use the latest versions of the solution.

I wouldn't recommend the solution. I'd advise others to look for something else on the market that has access to a cloud.

I'd rate the solution one out of ten. It's a security product that needs to be functional, and at this point, it's simply not.

The company uses this solution and I work along with security architects providing that as part of our recommendations for Azure projects. I'm a security specialist and the company has a maintenance enterprise agreement with Azure. 

The customization is probably the best feature in my opinion. I haven't yet delved deeper into the product or actually given recommendations, but what I hear from our customers is it's doing the job and our Security Operations Center is able to report and take action on any alerts.

The main drawback of the solution is that it's only for Azure. I'd like to see easier integration with the existing SIAM. Even when they do introduce new features, it's in preview for a long time, like the current geo filter option which is in review but it's been there for a long time. Microsoft could introduce preview options more quickly. 

I've been using this solution for four months. 

This is a stable solution. 

It's a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. I think from accepting the proposal, the entire implementation took us about three weeks. We're using it for around 12 projects within the company. We don't require extra resources for maintenance, if needed we use the existing cloud info team. 

The price is competitive and there are no annual licensing fees which helps. 

It's a good product and easy to deploy, I would just suggest using the application waiver. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

The solution has a variety of different features that are all excellent.

The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects.

The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive.

Although the integration is quite good, it could still be improved upon.

The implementation should be further simplified to make it easier to use right from the onset.

I believe I have been using the solution for about a year and a half now.

The solution is quite stable. We didn't run into any bugs. There haven't been glitches or crashes. We find it to be quite reliable.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it out, they can do so quite easily.

Currently, our company has about 100 employees on it regularly. They are both users and developers. It's a mix of people.

We've been in touch with technical support and have been satisfied with the level of assistance they have been able to provide to our team so far.

We didn't previously use a different platform. This is the first solution we have implemented.

The solution has a quite simple initial setup. We didn't find it to be overly complex.

The solution is expensive.

We don't have a business relationship with the solution. We are only customers.

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

I would recommend to other companies considering the solution to run through a proof of concept first. Everyone's needs are different, so it's important to make sure the solutions you choose are able to meet them effectively. That way, you'll be able to know if the solution will work for your company and if it makes sense to implement it or not.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The gateway is used to make the application connect to the internet and apply some firewall rules on Layer 7. We primarily use Azure Gateway for printers, some requests, and to apply some security rules to all the traffic that is coming from inside the Azure network. 

We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities.

The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems.

The solution is stable. We've never faced any stability problems while using it.

While I believe the option to scale exists on Azure, we have never needed to scale. I can't speak to how scalable it actually is. We've had two projects on Azure and we have had as many as 5,000 users on the solution with no problem.

We've never had to deal with technical support, as I don't really use any deep technical items on the solution.

Compared to other public clouds, the price is fairly high. I'm not sure if the pricing model has changed, but I recall it being slightly more expensive.

We are using the public cloud deployment model. We are both a customer and a reseller, but I myself have worked with Azure mainly as a customer.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are regular users of Azure Application Gateway. It is a very cost efficient option for customers and it has its own advantages. However, when there are urgent concerns regarding security I recommend utilising the web application firewall for its enhanced features and configuration options since Azure lacks functionalities and has its own limitations when handling suspicious requests. 

Usually, there is a recommendation from Microsoft about integrating Azure Application Gateway with other services like Monitor and Sentinel, so that there is seamless log forwarding and rule management. However, other options involve much more extensive configuration and scripting. In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads.

There is a recent feature called Application Policies which has been available. This policy allows us to enable or disable specific security signatures or features related to backend operations. According to the manual provided by Microsoft, this feature is very flexible in managing security and strategies for maintenance. However, in our experience, we have found that modifying these policies has a tremendous impact on the functionality of the application gateway. While it is necessary to adjust the settings, it should be a process of caution since these rules could potentially expose applications to security risks.

Multiple options exist to configure the number of instances and scale responses based on load increases. However, I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules. This feature is already available in products like Barracuda and would be great if they are included in the future versions of Application Gateway.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for the past two years. 

I would rate the stability a six out of ten because there are some malicious requests. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

Sometimes, technical support may require escalation to higher-level experts, particularly when dealing with complex issues. 

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, since it is simple and does not take a lot of time. 

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

I would rate the integration with other applications a nine out of ten. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.