Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

Azure Application Gateway's most valuable feature is ease of use. The configuration is straightforward. It isn't difficult to adjust the size of your instances in the settings. You can do that with a few clicks, and the configuration file is the same way. You can also set rules and policies with minimal time and effort. 

The solution is easy to use overall, but the dashboard could be updated with a better layout and graphical design so that we can see the data a bit easier. Microsoft could also add more documentation. The documentation Microsoft provides doesn't tell us about resource requirements. We found that the instances we had weren't sufficient to support the firewall, so we had to increase them. 

Azure is pretty stable, but you need to plan your resource use properly. 

Azure Application Gateway is easy to scale. However, you may need to adjust your resources. For example, if you're already using the application gateway and want to use the firewall, you probably need to increase the size of your instances because it will consume more CPU and other resources. Maybe the firewall could be a bit lighter so that you don't need to increase the size. 

I rate Microsoft Azure support 10 out of 10. They always give us great advice and go the extra mile. 

Positive

Setting up Application Gateway is effortless. 

I'm not familiar with Azure pricing for this product, but I know that it is billed based on usage. 

I rate Azure Application Gateway eight out of 10. It's a product that is still under development, but I think we'll see its full potential in a few years. 

We are using it to add an extra layer of security to our backend, protecting against denial-of-service attacks and other security threats.

We find it valuable because it is compatible with our existing Azure solution.

There is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

We just recently implemented it and are still exploring its features.

It is stable so far to our needs.

It is scalable so far to our needs.

The setup process is easy to follow by just following the official documentation. We were able to set it up within a few hours.

It is relatively expensive but still within our budget, especially compared to more expensive alternatives like Barracuda. There's no license. It's a cloud-based solution.

As we are already fully on Azure, it leverages other functionalities and remains cost-effective.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. 

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.

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.

Azure Application Gateway is used on an AKS cluster. We don't want to expose the control plane to the public IP. We created a control plane with a private IP and then put an Application Gateway in front of it. Users can access the AKS cluster through the Application Gateway. The Application Gateway filters traffic to the AKS cluster.

If you don't want to use public IPs and expose your enterprise externally to the public world, and you want strict authorization, you should use Azure Application Gateway.

The login mechanism could be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for a few months.

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

The solution is scalable.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an internal application that allows people to access it. We have 100s of different users working on it who can access it with their logins. We do not need to set up any database mechanism to add users.

Microsoft Support is good.

The initial setup of Azure Application Gateway is straightforward, provided you have a good understanding of networking concepts and have everything ready.

For deployment, the gateway is already available. It offers maximum protection and everything else.

If you want to build an application with standard authorization and a simple route within the organization instead of multiple routes, then Azure Application Gateway is a good option.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight 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 have multiple microservices connected to App Services, which are then connected to Application Gateway. External users communicate with the gateway, which directs them to the appropriate microservices.

The automatic redirection and security features are crucial for us. The performance is the main thing. Application Gateway automatically redirects unwanted users and takes care of the security aspect. It also handles the performance side of things, which is why we use it.

The Autoscaling feature in Application Gateway is very important to us. It allows us to scale based on the number of users without compromising performance.

We have encountered some issues with automatic redirection and cancellation, leading to 502 and 504 gateway errors. We suspect the containers we use might be contributing to these issues.

So, I experienced some trouble with containers.

I joined a new project four months ago and have been using Application Gateway since then.

Since we're still in development, we haven't fully tested the stability and availability. We'll have a better understanding during testing and performance evaluation. We anticipate encountering various challenges related to stability and scalability as we expand.

Based on my experience with limited users so far, it's working well. However, we plan to expand usage in the coming weeks, so I'll be able to provide more insights after seeing how it performs under increased load. 

At this point, I haven't experienced any lagging, so I'm yet to test it more thoroughly.

We have a minimum of ten users in development. However, once the product is released, we expect a significant increase, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands of users, as it's a mandatory feature for our medical-based use cases.

We have a subscription and can reach out to their support team if needed.

I previously used the API Gateway in AWS and found it to be good.

In AWS, there's the Load Balancer, Application Load Balancer, and API Gateway, which are comparable to Azure's Application Gateway.

Deployment is done using containers since everything is saved in a container registry.

I work with the cloud-based version of Application Gateway.

The configuration was a bit tricky initially, but it has been smooth since then.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive Because of some high costs. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten. Since I haven't fully utilized all its features, I need more real-world experience to compare it with AWS in terms of pricing, features, and scaling options.

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.