Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

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. 

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.

The solution's most valuable feature is an HTTP solution and SSL certificate. It is also easy to use.  

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway's first deployment is complex. It needs to improve its pricing. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has two projects that use it. 

The tool's deployment takes one week to complete. 

The tool's pricing model is pay-as-you-go. 

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a useful solution. I rate it a seven 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 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 use the solution for isolation and load balancing.

The solution offers the ability to scale the bandwidth in real-time and observability.

The product should improve its cost-to-performance ratio.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for 18 months.

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

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

All Azure services have the same support. There is no specific support. There is a similar team for all components and tickets. They need to do a much better job. The quality and speed of support should be improved.

Neutral

The initial setup takes a few minutes.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product is expensive.

I advise other users to monitor their usage and not build unnecessary gateways.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven 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.

The company uses this solution and I work along with security architects providing that as part of our recommendations for Azure projects. I'm a security specialist and the company has a maintenance enterprise agreement with Azure. 

The customization is probably the best feature in my opinion. I haven't yet delved deeper into the product or actually given recommendations, but what I hear from our customers is it's doing the job and our Security Operations Center is able to report and take action on any alerts.

The main drawback of the solution is that it's only for Azure. I'd like to see easier integration with the existing SIAM. Even when they do introduce new features, it's in preview for a long time, like the current geo filter option which is in review but it's been there for a long time. Microsoft could introduce preview options more quickly. 

I've been using this solution for four months. 

This is a stable solution. 

It's a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. I think from accepting the proposal, the entire implementation took us about three weeks. We're using it for around 12 projects within the company. We don't require extra resources for maintenance, if needed we use the existing cloud info team. 

The price is competitive and there are no annual licensing fees which helps. 

It's a good product and easy to deploy, I would just suggest using the application waiver. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.