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 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 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 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.

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. 

The solution is being used from warehouse to production. In short, for everything. 

The production is a valuable feature. 

The working speed of the solution needs improvement. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for quite some time. 

The solution is mostly stable. 

It is a scalable solution.

For the initial setup, I would rate it five or six. 

The deployment takes eight months. 

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.