Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

I use Application Gateway because I need to integrate different resource management. In one project, I had two to three applications to integrate using the API Gateway for security and networking solutions.

The solution integrates different applications and APIs securely, enhancing overall security and network optimization.

It creates security, manages installations, and integrates different applications and solutions. It is flexible and scalable, provides better business solutions and controlled versions, improved security, and comprehensive documentation.

The solution needs improvements in integrating different services and creating a better application balance.

It is scalable, allowing integrations with different cloud platforms like GCP and AWS, and creating varied environments in the Azure platform.

Microsoft does not have personal tech support but contracts external consultants for deployment and support. When a client has an issue, Microsoft sends emails to different MVP architects around the world to provide the best support.

Positive

AWS has many features but presents issues with Microsoft applications integration. Azure is preferred for its flexibility, scalability, and strength as a cloud solution.

The initial setup process is straightforward for me. However, depending on the project requirements, it might be complex for others.

Deployment requires two developers and one architect. Maintenance can be handled by one person.

Depending on the project, the return on investment varies. As an Azure cost management specialist, I can provide detailed cost assessments using the Azure calculator.

Using the Azure calculator, I evaluate projects and create cost prospects. The process is defined by Microsoft's framework and needs specific project assessments.

I have used other ADC or WAF products like AWS. However, Azure is preferred due to its flexibility, scalability, and strength.

I recommend using Azure for its flexibility, scalability, and strong solutions. It is the best cloud solution for various organizational needs.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I've used the solution for a simple at-home application where I just wanted to host something live and have load balancing built into it. I can't remember where the firewall came in. I know there's some sort of blocking for certain attacks through that firewall, but that was about as far as I really used it.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is an easy-to-use solution.

The solution can sometimes feel a little cumbersome unless you're a professional infrastructure person. I think the tool is just inherently complicated. You have to manually decide things that could have been done best by default.

I haven't seen any outages with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The solution should be able to handle any load.

I've used all three cloud providers for side projects, including Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. If you have a docker container or an image and want to deploy it somewhere, they're all fairly similar. I would choose to stay on a cloud platform because of cost and convenience purposes. If I already have a database running in one cloud, I might deploy an application with that same cloud provider.

The solution's initial setup is really easy, but it takes a long time to get that comfort.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup ten out of ten.

The solution is fairly priced.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten.

The solution's documentation was pretty good and useful. The solution is well-integrated, and I don't think any challenges exist. We are hosting an LOM application for internal use only, but I don't know the details. As an internal user of the LOM, I find it nice and fast. I would recommend the solution to other users.

I think some things in the tool are multi-step when they could have been a single step. Obviously, I understand that design decisions go into that. The solution can sometimes feel a little cumbersome unless you're a professional infrastructure person.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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 Microsoft Azure Application Gateway which hosted our domain as a load balancer. We have an application visible to the public and the traffic passes through this solution.

The most valuable feature of the solution is traffic management.

The solution could improve by increasing the performance when doing updates. For example, if I change the certificate it can take 30 minutes. Other vendors do not have this type of problem.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for approximately three years.

We have had some issues with the stability.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

We have approximately 600 requests from one balancer and a total of 3,000 requests.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

I rate support from Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a four out of ten.

Neutral

I have used a solution prior to  Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The implementation of the solution was complex, it took a few hours to complete.

I rate the initial setup of  Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a three out of ten.

The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a four 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 use the tool to manage web traffic for our applications. It helps us to filter out unwanted traffic. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is harder to manage than Imperva. It is not intuitive and stable compared to other products. 

I have been working with the product for two years. 

I rate the tool's stability a seven out of ten. 

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten. My company has more than 1000 users who use it daily. 

The tool's deployment is difficult. The time for provisioning varies depending on the company. It can range from as quick as five to ten minutes to as long as one hour or even half a day, depending on the specific requirements of the company you're provisioning for. The team depends on the size of the deployment. 

Our in-house and outsourced resources helped us with the deployment. 

The solution is cheaper than Imperva. I rate it four to five out of ten. 

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. 

We use the product as an application firewall for Layer 7 security instead of directly exposing applications on any computing platform to the internet. It has enhanced security compliance for our environment.

The product's most important feature is WAF. Using policies to link and manage these URL-based routing configurations is also valuable. It allows you to route traffic to different backend services based on the specific URLs requested from the load balancer.

The product could be easier to use and implement.

We have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for a year and a half.

I rate the software's stability a seven out of ten.

The product works well in terms of scalability. It is suitable for small and medium businesses. However, it costs extra to increase the number of instances. I rate the scalability as eight or nine.

I encounter technical issues related to tunning. I resolve them myself with helpful documentation.

The complexity of the initial setup process and the deployment time depend on different scenarios. I rate the process a six for complex projects and seven for straightforward projects. It includes configuring rules using infrastructure records. It takes approximately two days to two weeks to complete. It requires a lot of time in case of extensive debugging and fine-tuning.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

The product is good to use, integrating with a DDoS attack prevention tool. It would be good to compare it with CentOs as it is easy to use with an efficient setup combining CDN rules and DDoS protection.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a nine out of ten.

It's really useful, and I have used it for API applications as well as web applications. Apart from that, you can write your custom rules. 

I have widely used it for applications. It's good if you have a single application, as well as a number of applications. You can have one application and configure everything in one application gateway. 

Microsoft can work on it as the pooling size as the max pool size is two hundred. Sometimes, when there's heavy traffic, it gives a bad gateway error. 

If you are using a third party application and have network constraints, you can use the API in your network and then create a proxy out of it. It is URL-based. 

The solution's integration is very good.

The troubleshooting feature is also good, as it gives you a fair amount of permission.

Microsoft needs to work on their documentation.

The scalability needs improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for almost four years. 

It is a highly stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution can be made more scalable. 

The technical support team is quick in their responses.

Positive

The initial setup is complex at the beginner level due to lack of documents. 

The solution is reasonably priced. 

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.