Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

I use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway from a security perspective.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is a comprehensive product, but it doesn't have too many API integrations.

The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for around three years. My company has a partnership with Microsoft.

My company's clients who use the solution have never reported any stability issues.

It is a scalable solution.

There are around 50 users of the solution in my company. The actual number of users of the solution may vary because we have a lot of our company's customers who use it.

My company deals with medium and enterprise-sized businesses that use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of hours.

About five people from my company are needed to install and configure the solution.

The solution is deployed on a hybrid cloud.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a pretty affordable product. My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. The additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution vary.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is easy to maintain.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it since it is an extremely good platform.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We tried to integrate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway into our technology stack, but we realized that our service solution didn't see it at all during the integration. But I was played around with it for about two weeks to one month.

We were searching for a WAF solution which we could integrate into our stack and were using the management provided by the agent. We tried to integrate a vacation gateway controller, but we realized that the integration wasn't very good.

The most valuable feature is WAF.

It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. 

IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me.

I used Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for about two weeks to a month.

We got the feeling that this product wasn't stable or good enough for us.

Microsoft technical support could be better. For example, when some rules were disabled and other rules couldn't be disabled, I contacted Microsoft Support. But I didn't get an answer until the next day.

The initial setup was very complex. I spent a lot of time just troubleshooting the backend and figuring out how to connect it correctly. It can take just minutes or hours to sort it by hand using the agent portal. But it took me several days to realize how to set up it using Terraform.

I installed and deployed this solution by myself.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a five.

We primarily use the solution to just secure the traffic coming from the outside into our application.

Overall, we've been happy with the solution.

The solution has good integrations. You can combine it between a few different options.

The product is easy to work with. It has a very high level of performance.

The solution is well supported by Mircosoft. If you run into issues, they are there to assist and to work with you to resolve everything.

The pricing is quite good.

Occasionally the solution is too secure and we need it to allow in specific traffic. It tends to cut that traffic off due to its high security settings.

The monitoring on the solution could be better.

The product requires better reporting capabilities. Currently, we need to have a third-party handle that aspect for us.

There needs to be more of a security center. That way, we're able to see everything that's going on in the system.

The product needs to offer DDoS protection.

I've been working on the solution for one year. It hasn't been too long at this point.

This solution is quite stable. We haven't had any issues. It's been reliable.

When it comes to scalability, there are no limitations. Azure gives you whatever your environments need. It has all the capabilities to do what you require.

Technical support has been really great. It's one of its selling features. Microsoft is quite supportive and we've been very happy with their level of service so far.

The initial setup wasn't too complex. It was pretty straightforward. We didn't run into any issues in general.

The solution is quite reasonably priced. It costs less than other cloud solutions.

We are Microsoft partners.

I would recommend this product to people. It's safe and Microsoft recommends it as well. Up until this point, it's working great for us. It's excellent at catching attacks and suspicious content. 

Overall, I would rate it at a ten out of ten. It works well for us and offers good performance.

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 use the solution for Internet traffic load balancing and internet traffic routing via proxies to our internal applications. It is not for user connectivity but more for the system to system integration as an application gateway.

Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.

One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS. We had some requirement for load balancing that it did not support SAP, they should provide support for more protocols.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The solution is very stable for us at the moment but I think we need more experience in the future to come to a more exact determination on the stability.

We have no problem with the scalability of the solution.

The installation is quite simple.

We have a cloud technical team that does the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year. 

We plan to keep using the solution in the future and I would recommend it to others.

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

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.

We use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for web applications and APIs.

So far, so good, but there are some capabilities we would like to investigate further, such as distributed denial of service (DDoS) and other similar features.

It does an excellent job of load balancing. The Application Gateway is performing load balancing, but we must decide whether to continue using the Gateway's firewall or to use another firewall. That's what we're looking at.

The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway. That's the issue, that we are looking into.

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

We are working with version two.

We have no issues with the stability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, so far it has been good.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a scalable solution. We have not had any issues with scalability.

It's an external customer base.

The initial setup is straightforward. We do not have any issues with that, we are completely in control of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

We completed the deployment ourselves.

The cost is not an issue. It's not about finding a less expensive solution. It's about the additional costs we might incur if we with Cloudflare or another similar service provider.

We are not facing any additional costs. We must consider the additional costs that will be incurred if we choose a more advanced firewall.

I'm looking into web application firewalls and comparing Cloudflare with Azure's firewall. We are currently using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and were considering the benefits and costs of upgrading to Cloudflare.

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