Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

We mostly use Microsoft Azure App Service for websites, such as content management systems, WordPress, and others, which are built on Azure Web Repair and App Services.

I like that it's a ready-to-use, out-of-the-box solution that provides all of the necessary functions for customers, such as codes that can be quickly switched from the production version, or from test and DEV versions to production. 

Quote backup and restore vertical and horizontal scaling, and DEV scaling are all available. In this case, developers do not need to learn and spend their time on the configuration for the platform, just coding and asking to compute, which they need and that configuration, which platform provides them.

Price could be reduced.

Particularly with Azure Web Apps. According to their current architecture, moving services from one Azure subscription to another is difficult.

Customers can consume the Azure platform through a variety of subscriptions from various partners, financial visions, current political visions, and so on. Some services on the Microsoft Azure platform can be moved automatically from one subscription to another based on security and financial rules, while others cannot.

Azure Web Apps are the type of service that does not automatically move from subscription to subscription, and region to region. A lot of manual labor must be performed by their organization, customer, and engineers, if necessary.

They must pay too much attention to how to plan this, how to switch off, switch on, on which days, at what times, and so on. A lot of administrative work is done, but it's not very good. 

It would be fantastic if Microsoft morphed after my exit service, removing it from subscriptions and moving it to different regions, especially for that service.

I have used Microsoft Azure App Service for the last 12 months.

Because it is cloud-based, there is only one version.

Microsoft Azure App Service is stable. It's good enough. it's present here, but anyone can take it if it's needed. Especially now, Microsoft offers a very special support program in Ukraine. For example, if a customer needs to support their business processes, they can use any Azure solution for free until the end of the calendar year.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a scalable solution.

We are a technical support team, and we handle all of our support needs. We have not contacted technical support.

I am Microsoft-certified trained. This is why I don't require any additional support assistance; I train others. In other words, every Microsoft commercial partner receives direct Microsoft support. For example, Amazon provides additional information from the traditional partner channel, or by extra support, through premier support contracts. All of them must be present on a commercial basis in order to provide truly high-quality services to customers.

I am a technical architect and I have some commercial partners. I work as a system integrator. It is a software, global company that specializes in delivering cloud software, solutions, and services. As for this, I have over 25 years of experience with all stacks, including Azure, AWS, Google GCP, Oracle Cloud, and others. I was very interested in the Zimbra and Microsoft Exchange compilation because, in my opinion, based on my experience and statistics, Zimbra is not widely used in our accounting and based installation. However, one commercial customer inquired about my thoughts on Zimbra in conjunction with Exchange. It was very unfamiliar to me, which is why I attempted to conduct independent research on Zimbra solutions. Who and how are relevant to that question. I don't think we'll implement Zimbra because it's outside of our stack, but it was very interesting to get some perspective on the questions, nothing special, just vision and experience and growth.

We use what our customers requested from the Microsoft stacks, which are mostly infrastructure as a service solutions. It is a very limited number of PaaS installations or implementations, such as Aurora or Microsoft SQL, Azure SQL as a service, web applications on Azure, and so on. Of course, SaaS, such as Office 365, is a good option, but I can't say what other options aren't because the Microsoft stack is our primary commercial platform for our sources. It's fantastic; it provides us with some commercial advantages.

We recently used Azure, virtual machines, virtual networks, and virtual storage, as well as Azure IaaS Stack, Azure Virtual Machines, and Azure Storage.

Because Azure Web Services is based on the Azure IaaS Stack, it is infrastructure as a service. It's a platform as a service that's based on IaaS for some purposes, but our customers don't need the services to bring ready-to-use apps because they don't have a lot of education and institutes. Overall, Qualys solutions are not widely used in Ukraine, for example, by schools, governments, and institutes, due to commercial issues and, in particular, our notice time.

We chose Microsoft Azure App Service because the customer inquired. We are a very commercial company, and if the market or the customer did not request it, we did not provide it. If the customer requests it, we will provide it.

I don't recall any problems with the initial setup at the time because I believe it was adequate. I didn't hear anything about widespread or public knowledge of some issues in that area.

Most importantly, not too much. The customer has a high level of financial maturity to value DPI; they do not discuss ROI or other metrics. They simply book on current, can say spending, if current model spending is adequate.

Price could always be cheaper.

It is not about the license fees, but rather about the pay-as-you-go services.

Customers consume varying amounts of quality services and pay roughly the same amount. Where there are different customer sizes, some customers consume $5,000 US dollars per month. I have some customers who pay and consume more than $20,000 US dollars per month, for example. It is determined by customer sizes and requirements, which vary from month to month.

I would advise paying closer attention to the architecture of the solutions. If the architecture is well designed, this will be a very good placement on cloud solutions; otherwise, it will be placed incorrectly. It's a common situation, and owing too much money as it should be.

I would rate Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

We are a Microsoft partner.

We are using Microsoft Azure App Service in the government sector.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure App Service is customization. It provides the building block from its modularity. You can add what you need with the appropriate code.

Microsoft Azure App Service could improve by having better integration and connectivity with other platforms. The solution has good integration with other large companies' solutions but there are smaller service platforms companies where there could be integrated better.

I have been using Microsoft Azure App Service for approximately seven years.

The Microsoft Azure App Service platform is stable. We have a business continuity plan and we need our services to be always on.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

Microsoft Azure App Service is scalable.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure App Service a nine out of ten.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service was easy. There was a logical path in how to do it. I have a development environment because I'm using Dynamics 365.

I rate the initial setup of Microsoft Azure App Service a five out of ten.

The pricing model of Microsoft Azure App Service could be made more clear. There is a scale and range and it can be complicated and convoluted. Some simplification is needed.

I rate the price of Microsoft Azure App Service a seven out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is hosting web applications which can be Linux or Windows-based. Microsoft Azure App Service is a multi-tenant environment where customers can load and run the application. It is similar to a platform as a service.

The most valuable feature is the ability to scale the application. It scales dynamically and comes with two features. If you can find a fabulous feature in the Azure Functions app, it allows you to scale, so you don't need to worry about manually scaling or setting any scaling parameters. Then it automatically does the scaling on its own.

The other feature comes with VNet integration. So we can connect the Microsoft Azure App Service to a VNet so that it can privately communicate with other resources within Azure with a private IP. It also comes with the CDN feature, which can automatically load in some of your configuration files and use it instead of going back to storage to pick that up. It also has awesome features like backup, so you don't need to set up a recovery service, as it automatically does that. So you can back up the existing state of your application in case of any loss. In a nutshell, it has dynamic tools.

The outbound connectivity is not great but can be improved because, on virtual machines, the Microsoft Azure App Service uses four or five outbound IPs. So basically, if you want to communicate with an external source, you can use outbound IPs. For example, you must whitelist the outbound IP when communicating with an SQL database externally. However, because it's a multi-tenant environment and other customer applications are being shared on a skills tab, there are always limitations in the smart port. So each customer has a particular allocated smart port, which they should exhaust. It helps to work with the code. Regardless of features like a firewall where they have a hub and an environment they have features like a front door which can increase the smart port's limits to about 64,000. Hence, it will be good to have one IP without needing to add any other infrastructure.

Additionally, they can improve scaling the typical environment in terms of scalability. I believe the limit for the multi-tenant environment is about 20 to 30 maximum on the PV3. So if they can increase that, other than having these significant scaling limits for the Microsoft Azure App Service environment, which is about 200, that will also help.

Also, dedicating one outbound IP for App Service will go a long way.

We have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

They have a good support team. We don't think the front-end support is of concern because the front end has to talk to the internal respective application engineering team. Sometimes the core platform issues may take about two months or more. They can answer your queries, and they can help you do investigations.

Additionally, depending on your support package, if you have a premium plan, you get the best because you have support engineers who are intelligent. But you get different services with the pro-direct support plan. There's miscommunication between the front end and the application engineering team. I think that's something that they need to improve. On a premium plan, you get excellent support. I rate support for pro-direct a six out of ten and premium support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. You can set it up through the portal, a template, or Terraform. It integrates with other features like Docker so if you have your image in Docker Hub or ECR, you can select the image, and it pulls those images in and runs your application.

It has many features, and other deployment methods like Bitbucket, FTP, DevOps, and GitLab can integrate these things into Microsoft Azure App Service. It is easy to set up because you don't need to start building servers. We also don't need to complete any maintenance. 

The price of this solution is competitive. It works as an App Service plan so you can have multiple App Services that are part of a plan. So, for example, you can have about 10 App Services in an App Service plan. It's like a VM, where you have different applications running and you are not charged for all of the applications. However, you are being charged for the plan, so I think it's worth having that setup. At the same time, you need to plan how your costs will be and their ranges of variations. As we call it, SKU is where you can easily factor in so it is okay in terms of price.

One of the best products is the Functions app, which comes with serverless computing in the sense that it gives you about a million transactions for free every month. That is one of the cheapest. So you don't need to worry about how long your function triggers, just that if it scales more than that and performs more transactions, you get charged for it. The exact cost depends on the SKUs.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We have our application on Azure and it does a REST call through the App Service, which in turn connects to our on-premises database.

We are using Tomcat and Java in conjunction with this service.

This product is user-friendly and the customization is good.

We wanted an application that we can use on the cloud to expose services outside of our premises. Azure provides a good platform and the integration is very strong, as well as scalable. You don't have to worry about procuring a server or maintaining it. You simply write the code, deploy it, and Azure takes care of the scaling and everything else.

There are a lot of features, such as scaling up and scaling down.

Debugging using Application Insights is a valuable feature.

Initially, there were some rare instances when the server went down because it was deployed on Linux. There are some features that are not available on the Linux-based deployment, yet are available on Windows. This is something that I think Microsoft has now caught up.

I have been using the Azure App Service for the past year.

We haven't had any issues with respect to stability.

It scales very well and in the case of our environment, it is good. We have approximately 20,000 people who are using the application.

The technical support is fantastic. We have calls with Microsoft every couple of weeks and they have been very helpful in giving us insights.

We were using Oracle prior to Azure, but that was on-premises. When we made the transition to the cloud, the company opted for Azure.

The initial setup is simple.

We have no complaints about the pricing.

Everything looks good and we are happy with this product. It seems to have everything that we need and I haven't seen any limitations. My advice to anybody who is looking at it is that it's a good platform to start building your integrations.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

One use case was to host the Azure Bot logic code. The Bot logic was hosted on an App Service instance. The other use case was a POC where we were lifting and shifting a monolithic application, a .NET monolithic application, onto the cloud.

The most valuable feature is that it's an ideal solution when it comes to lifting and shifting monolithic applications from on-premises to Azure Cloud. It allows for a quick shift into the cloud without having to analyze and design very specific infrastructure and services for monolithic applications hosted primarily on-premises. Let's say that the team does not want to really redesign monoliths in a microservices-based application and that they want to make a quick move towards adopting the cloud tech stack. Then, Microsoft Azure App Service is probably the best option.

In terms of room for improvement, ease of deployment would be an area that needs some focus. Azure does provide out-of-the-box deployment features, but I found that deploying to an App Service instance can be better in terms of more tools that could be available to perform a deployment.

I've been using this solution since 2020.

It is deployed on a virtual network on Azure.

It is stable, but it really depends on the workload that is being shifted and the base service plan that is selected. Because though it is a platform as a service, you do have the option to design a service plan that is adequate for your applications, performance needs, and overall traffic that hits your applications. In terms of it being a platform-as-a-service feature, it is quite stable.

It is scalable. The user base for the Bot service application was about 400 to 500 users worldwide.

The technical support is average, and I would give them a six out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and can be done quickly depending on the number of applications being deployed. A single application should not take more than a couple of minutes to deploy.

The cost depends on the App Service plan that you choose. There are a number of tiers available.

If you have a standard enterprise application, for example, for the sake of simplicity, a single server with 50 requests per second, trying to do a lift and shift to App Service is probably a good idea. Bot framework solutions generally tend to use App Service for custom Bot logic, for hosting the custom Bots and the custom logic for Bots. App Service is probably a bit easier in terms of implementation compared to that of other options.

However, for high performance applications that have a heavy load on them and are expected to perform at a certain level of response time, a pure lift and shift to App Service will not work well. You would probably need to choose a higher tier of App Service with a good App Service plan with a certain number of underlying host servers that are servicing it.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure App Service at six on a scale from one to ten.

This solution is used for project management, source code and IT. It is used primarily for development purposes.

This solution is easy to deploy.

The cost management of this solution could be better. We only receive estimations.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup of this solution is very easy.

The pricing and cost of this solution depends on the use and needs of a business.

This is a good solution for those who want to start small looking for a data center that is cloud based.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution for small rep services. We are using it currently for three or four small use cases and it is a perfect fit for all of them, which is why we chose it. 

The most valuable features of this solution are the easy deployment, the scalability, and the Azure maintenance.

There is always room for improvement price-wise.

We have been using this solution for about three or four years.

I have found this solution to be highly stable. 

The scalability of the solution is awesome. 

The deployment of this solution is easy. 

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the ROI of this solution as a three.

On a scale of one to five, with one being expensive and five being competitive, I would rate this solution as a four.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.

We’ve used the solution for deploying several applications. We use it for testing purposes. It’s used for testing web apps and developing some proof of concepts.

It's easy to deploy web apps through Common Line or Visual Studio Editor, which is useful as I can deploy container solutions.

It is scalable.

The solution overall is very good.

The implementation process is easy. It’s also fast.

It’s stable.

There are no issues with the solution. I’m happy with the product.

We’ve been using the solution for three years.

It's a stable solution if you select the standard sizing. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze.

The solution can scale well.

Technical support is rapid and extremely helpful. Whenever I have questions, they provide feedback very fast.

The product is straightforward to set up and quick to deploy.

I’m using the free version of the solution. I do not pay for licensing.

I’m using the latest version of the solution. I’m an end-user of the product.

I’d recommend this solution. You can start to use App Service immediately. You only need to have a subscription. If you would like to test App Service, then you only need to deploy in a free sizing version, and you can get going.

I’d rate the solution ten out of ten.