Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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. 

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.

The product is an underlying part of our front-door solution.

We are satisfied with the solution. The load balancing features are valuable. We faced some issues before. The product acts as an extra layer to prevent attacks. We haven't had the problem since.

We had to switch the tool once. We faced some downtime while validating CNAME. We could not validate it before the switch. It was annoying, but it was not that big of a problem.

I have been using the solution for five years.

We did the configuration and management through Terraform. It is an infrastructure as code tool. It made the deployment a little bit easier. I also tried doing it manually. It was quite a lot of work to have the right settings and get it going, especially if you're learning the tool. Once you know it, you will figure out what to do. We just have to study the solution.

The learning curve was not that steep. The vendor did a pretty good job. I remember using documentation to learn it. It was okay. Sometimes, we have to figure things out. Sometimes, the videos are outdated. I know how hard it is to keep it up to date with a continuously improving product.

We are using the basic version. The product satisfies our needs. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We primarily use this solution to hide all of our applications behind the firewall. The application logic and dependencies are not known to the outside world because you don't have to open your external public IP to them.

It does not particularly improve functionality but you get the benefit of the security that is offered by Azure.

The Azure Application Gateway allows us to hide all of our backend components from our clients.

This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date.

Once the gateway is configured, you can route all of your client requests based on the relevant part. For example, if somebody is asking to upload an image then a separate part will be called, whereas if they are asking to upload a video then it will be a different repository.

The documentation is not user-friendly and it is not very easy to use. For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved.

The tutorials are something that can be improved upon.

I would like to see this more of a multitenant solution.

I have been working with the Azure Application Gateway for almost 11 months.

It is a good service that is provided by the vendor and it is stable.

It is getting more scalable as more features are being added.

We have not been in contact with technical support for this solution.

We use Microsoft products for the majority of our applications and we are completely dependent on them. We did use another service prior to this one, which was an internal tool, but we switched to Azure because everything is being controlled by the vendor.

The configuration involves defining all of the routes. This is somewhat complex and is not easily understandable by just anyone. Our deployment took about 15 minutes.

We have an internal team for deployment and maintenance.

We did not evaluate other options before selecting the Azure Application Gateway.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is that it is not a must-have feature, but rather, a security service. If you're ready to bear the cost for security then you should implement the application gateway. 

This is a product that is in good shape.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution has a variety of different features that are all excellent.

The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects.

The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive.

Although the integration is quite good, it could still be improved upon.

The implementation should be further simplified to make it easier to use right from the onset.

I believe I have been using the solution for about a year and a half now.

The solution is quite stable. We didn't run into any bugs. There haven't been glitches or crashes. We find it to be quite reliable.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it out, they can do so quite easily.

Currently, our company has about 100 employees on it regularly. They are both users and developers. It's a mix of people.

We've been in touch with technical support and have been satisfied with the level of assistance they have been able to provide to our team so far.

We didn't previously use a different platform. This is the first solution we have implemented.

The solution has a quite simple initial setup. We didn't find it to be overly complex.

The solution is expensive.

We don't have a business relationship with the solution. We are only customers.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're currently using.

I would recommend to other companies considering the solution to run through a proof of concept first. Everyone's needs are different, so it's important to make sure the solutions you choose are able to meet them effectively. That way, you'll be able to know if the solution will work for your company and if it makes sense to implement it or not.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The solution is used to terminate the SSL configuration to do SL Inspection for securing your website, as we cannot provide the website directly to the Internet. To prevent it from attacks and to maintain authentication.

The solution has many limitations. You cannot upgrade the VPN to the application gateway. So I started with version one, which has limited capabilities, and they provided version two. And unfortunately, I cannot upgrade from v one to v two like other services. So I have to decommission the version one and create a new one with version two. Also the version one was complex with the certificates uploading the SQL certificates.

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

It is a stable solution.

It is not a scalable solution. It's scalable because as I told you, if you are using version one, you cannot upgrade which means it's not scalable and not reliable. Because maybe later next year, they will provide you with version three and you cannot upgrade. So you are in a hassle every year to recreate it.

The technical support team is not good.So they have to put the proper people in Azure to support other people. They should not put first client support, they have they read by the group and do support severity one and severity two cases. So it is an ongoing group with them. That's why I don't rely on Azure support. I do rely on my expertise and my findings.

The initial setup is complex. The deployment needs expertise so one needs to be familiar and read properly and do the testing.

It is an expensive solution. We have an enterprise agreement, it is monthly.

I don't have a lot of visibility on the traffic and I do not like it. So everything that I am locked with, I cannot see the root logs and I don't recommend it. So if it comes to me to decide which solution I would like, I won't go on the cloud unless I have full visibility on my resources. So because while troubleshooting, you will be in a non handling loop with the support and the support of the cloud. They are not able to provide you with the solution. They have to escalate and debug it. So you will be losing days and days troubleshooting. So once you have your appliance, you will have access to the root level, and you can collect the logs, read the logs, send it to the vendor and work with it.

I rate the solution a three out of ten.

I like the tool's stability and performance. 

I want the solution's support to improve. The tool is also expensive. 

I don't find the solution to be stable. 

I have had issues with the customer service's responses. I want the support to be more quicker. 

The tool's setup is straightforward.  

I would rate the product an eight out of ten.