Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

I use the solution in my company to protect an external website.

The product's WAF was useful to protect against the OWASP attacks.

The tool is a pain to deal with when it comes to the area of configuration. Basically, users get a lot of false positives with the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

I think the reporting elements could be a bit better in terms of having built-in reports, considering how everything has to be a cluster query when you write it, making it an area where users customize the tool. The reporting elements are an area with shortcomings in the tool that could be better as it would be useful to deal with false positives.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for five months. I use the solution internally for my company. My company has a gold partnership with Microsoft.

It is a stable solution.

It is an easily scalable solution.

The tool is not meant for users since it is designed for public access; considering that, I would say that the solution provides protection to our company website, which has thousands of visitors.

The solution's technical support is okay and not that good, considering that my company still has some existing tickets open with the support team, which are related to some login stuff. The problem with Microsoft is they outsource their support to vendors in other parts of the world, so it is like a lucky draw system, meaning you are lucky if you get someone good.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The solution can be deployed in a day.

I deployed the solution by myself in my company.

The product's ROI is okay, in my opinion.

The price of the product is okay. There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution.

My company had looked at the options offered by Cloudflare, but we decided to stick to the stack of services offered within Azure.

For most of our company's in-house resources, we are dependent on the cloud services offered by Microsoft, so it was easy to adopt Microsoft Azure Application Gateway in our organization.

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.

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. 

Application Gateway is a tool service that provides high availability, redundancy, and load balancing for deployed applications on the cloud.

Application Gateway is cost-effective and has autoscaling. We can autoscale it.

The application gateway is good, but performance improvement in the containerization environment is needed. 

The traffic that relies on HTTP for a website is being manually configured to HTTPS. This process should be automated. If the protocol is HTTP, it should automatically redirect to HTTPS.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for one and a half years.

The stability is acceptable, but we are encountering issues configuring the container environment. Apart from that, the performance is satisfactory.

 I rate the solution’s stability as seven out of ten, but I rate it as nine out of ten for normal applications.

We have over three hundred customers, most of whom utilize Azure Application Gateway. Some are in the government sector, while others are in the private sector.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

Microsoft's support is lacking. Their technical expertise seems insufficient, and when issues arise, the support personnel often request screenshots and provide only minimal information. Despite numerous emails and interactions with various technical support personnel, the initial support experience is subpar. The response is very fast, but they're not technical questions, as we need.

Positive

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten for technical users and an eight out of ten for non-technical users. It's a one-time application. However, once configured, it becomes very easy to manage. Deployment takes 20-30 minutes, depending on the number of applications and servers we are configuring.

The product is cheap.

A WAF, a robust firewall solution, has been built into the Azure portal. Two models are available. The WAF is also integrated with the Application Gateway, providing comprehensive security for your cloud applications.

This security feature applies to traditional VM applications running on VMs and extends to autoscaling nodes in containerized environments.

The Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a highly beneficial and flexible feature for facilitating the development of our applications and obtaining necessary certifications, thus sustaining our business operations. It offers scalability and high availability, which are crucial for meeting our growing needs. The Application Gateway serves as the sole solution for providing these capabilities, eliminating the need for developing such features in-house. It's an all-in-one solution that perfectly fulfills our requirements.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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. 

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.

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.