Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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 are regular users of Azure Application Gateway. It is a very cost efficient option for customers and it has its own advantages. However, when there are urgent concerns regarding security I recommend utilising the web application firewall for its enhanced features and configuration options since Azure lacks functionalities and has its own limitations when handling suspicious requests. 

Usually, there is a recommendation from Microsoft about integrating Azure Application Gateway with other services like Monitor and Sentinel, so that there is seamless log forwarding and rule management. However, other options involve much more extensive configuration and scripting. In my experience, Microsoft products have a smooth integration and facilitate easy management and monitoring. Using Azure Application Gateway allows us to efficiently handle the system loads.

There is a recent feature called Application Policies which has been available. This policy allows us to enable or disable specific security signatures or features related to backend operations. According to the manual provided by Microsoft, this feature is very flexible in managing security and strategies for maintenance. However, in our experience, we have found that modifying these policies has a tremendous impact on the functionality of the application gateway. While it is necessary to adjust the settings, it should be a process of caution since these rules could potentially expose applications to security risks.

Multiple options exist to configure the number of instances and scale responses based on load increases. However, I believe that there is room for improvement in terms of additional functionality. It is an advantage to have features readily available for configuration without needing customer-defined rules. This feature is already available in products like Barracuda and would be great if they are included in the future versions of Application Gateway.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for the past two years. 

I would rate the stability a six out of ten because there are some malicious requests. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

Sometimes, technical support may require escalation to higher-level experts, particularly when dealing with complex issues. 

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, since it is simple and does not take a lot of time. 

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

I would rate the integration with other applications a nine out of ten. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

I use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for publishing.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the web application firewall (WAF).

We got other additional application delivery controllers. Implementing and standardizing the solution across the IT landscape in a heterogeneous environment is painful. Some websites are published through an application delivery controller, which is not Azure or Microsoft. Having a standard implementation across the IT landscape is what we're trying to address at the moment.

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

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

We previously used Citrix NetScaler.

The solution’s initial setup was straightforward.

The solution can be implemented in a couple of hours.

We've implemented Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for web traffic management in our organization for inbound HTTPS access.

We use a standard app service plan on the back end. We're talking about some 6,000 to 7,000 concurrent connections, and we haven't faced any scaling issues so far.

The web application firewall feature has proven most beneficial for our security and load-balancing needs. There was a compliance and security requirement to enable OWASP. That's why we enabled SQL injection and other features on WAF.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for its ease of configuration and management. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a great product, and I would encourage everyone to use it if they have a presence in Azure.

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

We are using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for load balancing and for an additional layer of security.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is its ease of use.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway could improve by allowing features to use more third-party tools.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for approximately six months.

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

The scalability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is great and can be done automatically.

We are doing approximately 10,000 requests per second.

The wait time for a response from the support can be too long. Additionally, we have called repeatedly and we did not have a good experience.

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

Neutral

I used Imprivata OneSign and F5 prior to switching to Microsoft Azure Application Gateway because of the better cloud performance.

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

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is simple when you follow the instructions.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway 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. 

We're using it to expose our application but the main purpose is to make use of the web in a location.

We have increased the security so now our infrastructure is more secure. And  all the inbound traffic is passing through the WAF and not our application because we have some APIs,  based on the encryption apps. So we are changing on the previous load balancer with this application gateway.

The security feature in all the layers of the application is the most valuable.

The support can be improved when you are configuring the system rules.

The Disaster Recovery feature can be added in the next release. 

The price of the solution can be reduced a bit.

I have been using the solution for three years.

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

It is a scalable solution. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The customer support team is not very good. I rate them six out of ten.

The initial setup is simple.

The price of the solution can be reduced a bit. 

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.

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.

Our client is using three to four applications. One use case is with the integration layer, which has the website running on the web app. It interacts with different applications and with their on-premise SAP solution as well. This app service works as an integration layer between the SAP solution and other different applications. The solution also has its patient application running, which is the patient appointment system, since our client is a healthcare organization. That separate application also runs on App Service and is deployed on Application Gateway.

I find its Application Gateway's WAF module valuable because it helps prevent layer 7 attacks.

Application Gateway’s limitation is that the private and the public endpoint cannot use the same port. But I believe they are working on it.

Another shortcoming is that the maximum permissive size for the request body size is two MB, and it needs to be increased up to five MB or more. Some other third-party solutions or even AWS provides better request body size in this regard.

I would like to see some more features in WAF with the next release to make it more competitive with leading web solution providers. When we compare the WAF with other solutions like F5’s WAF, Application Gateway’s WAF has fewer features.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten. It took us four or five months to optimize the solution.

I rate Application Gateway's scalability a ten out of ten because it is very good. It has an autoscale feature. The solution is being used on close to 200 endpoints. My client is a medium-sized healthcare business.

Sometimes customer support puts issues in loops, where they take us through L1 and L2, and it takes some time to get to the right person who can address the issue.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup an eight-point-five out of ten because it is easy. Deploying the solution takes a day or so, but all the configurations, working with the application team, and optimizations take time. Usually, it takes three to four days.

While deploying the solution, we gathered application data first, such as the URLs which we needed to run the app services, health probe ports, the certificates from the customer, and any custom flash rules which may need to be created. We gathered all the information from the customer and the customer's development teams.

I rate the pricing seven out of ten because some third-party solutions are even costlier than this. The product's price is good considering the set of features it provides. There is no cost in licensing, but they charge us based on the size of the application gateway, the data being transferred, and the gateway's scalability.

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.