The traffic must pass through the firewall server and proceed through the application gateway before reaching the application itself. I rate the product a five out of ten.
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.
Technical Architect at a insurance company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
2024-02-20T16:50:00Z
Feb 20, 2024
People who want to use the solution can use it. I think it is a good product. I'm not very sure about the competing products. I will recommend the tool to others. It works well. It is feature and purpose-focused. Wherever we have HTTP traffic, we should use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway along with WAF. It will give us full protection for our web applications. People should compare the product with Front Door and choose what is best for them. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.
To utilize Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for managing web traffic load balancing in our company, we use products within the Azure landscape like Azure Load Balancer or Azure NAT Gateway. In our company, we don't have multiple instances of the application to utilize Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for application-level routing and URL-based content distribution. There is pretty much just one instance to deal with in our company, which makes the use of the tool quite straightforward. The tool's WAF provides a fairly adequate level of protection against common vulnerabilities. The solution doesn't require any maintenance once it is deployed. Integrating Azure Application Gateway with other Azure services in our company's existing infrastructure is a fairly seamless process. I haven't had any issues with the scalability and performance of the product. I would ask those who plan to use the solution in the future to plan the deployment so they have more time to analyze their data when using the WAF, and you need at least six months of history to see the traffic patterns and to get an alert on false positives. I rate the product an eight out of ten.
Learn what your peers think about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2024.
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.
Director & CEO at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 10
2023-09-12T06:50:00Z
Sep 12, 2023
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.
Architect at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
MSP
Top 5
2023-07-11T08:27:02Z
Jul 11, 2023
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.
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.
Cybersecurity Administrator at Carrion Communications
Real User
Top 20
2023-06-09T18:12:48Z
Jun 9, 2023
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.
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.
If you are a native Azure user, I would recommend this solution as long as you don't have any other security solution options. I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a seven out of ten.
Presales Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2021-01-15T11:53:03Z
Jan 15, 2021
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.
Cloud Solutions Administrator at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
2020-12-29T19:17:54Z
Dec 29, 2020
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.
Cloud Architect at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-10-21T04:34:05Z
Oct 21, 2020
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.
Network Administrator at a government with 201-500 employees
Real User
2020-09-27T04:10:17Z
Sep 27, 2020
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.
Senior Software Engineer at Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
Real User
2020-05-20T06:52:55Z
May 20, 2020
My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is that it is not a must-have feature, but rather, a security service. If you're ready to bear the cost for security then you should implement the application gateway. This is a product that is in good shape. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Asst. Vice President at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2020-03-09T08:07:54Z
Mar 9, 2020
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.
Systems Team Leader at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Real User
2019-09-08T09:50:00Z
Sep 8, 2019
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.
Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.
To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.
The traffic must pass through the firewall server and proceed through the application gateway before reaching the application itself. I rate the product a five out of ten.
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.
People who want to use the solution can use it. I think it is a good product. I'm not very sure about the competing products. I will recommend the tool to others. It works well. It is feature and purpose-focused. Wherever we have HTTP traffic, we should use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway along with WAF. It will give us full protection for our web applications. People should compare the product with Front Door and choose what is best for them. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.
To utilize Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for managing web traffic load balancing in our company, we use products within the Azure landscape like Azure Load Balancer or Azure NAT Gateway. In our company, we don't have multiple instances of the application to utilize Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for application-level routing and URL-based content distribution. There is pretty much just one instance to deal with in our company, which makes the use of the tool quite straightforward. The tool's WAF provides a fairly adequate level of protection against common vulnerabilities. The solution doesn't require any maintenance once it is deployed. Integrating Azure Application Gateway with other Azure services in our company's existing infrastructure is a fairly seamless process. I haven't had any issues with the scalability and performance of the product. I would ask those who plan to use the solution in the future to plan the deployment so they have more time to analyze their data when using the WAF, and you need at least six months of history to see the traffic patterns and to get an alert on false positives. I rate the product an eight out of ten.
I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
I advise other users to monitor their usage and not build unnecessary gateways. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would rate the product an eight out of ten.
I would not recommend this solution. I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a four out of ten.
The solution is suitable for any sized organization. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
I would rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight out of ten.
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.
If you are a native Azure user, I would recommend this solution as long as you don't have any other security solution options. I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a seven out of ten.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a five.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would recommend this solution. I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.
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'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.
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.
My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is that it is not a must-have feature, but rather, a security service. If you're ready to bear the cost for security then you should implement the application gateway. This is a product that is in good shape. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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 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.