Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

We primarily use the solution to just secure the traffic coming from the outside into our application.

Overall, we've been happy with the solution.

The solution has good integrations. You can combine it between a few different options.

The product is easy to work with. It has a very high level of performance.

The solution is well supported by Mircosoft. If you run into issues, they are there to assist and to work with you to resolve everything.

The pricing is quite good.

Occasionally the solution is too secure and we need it to allow in specific traffic. It tends to cut that traffic off due to its high security settings.

The monitoring on the solution could be better.

The product requires better reporting capabilities. Currently, we need to have a third-party handle that aspect for us.

There needs to be more of a security center. That way, we're able to see everything that's going on in the system.

The product needs to offer DDoS protection.

I've been working on the solution for one year. It hasn't been too long at this point.

This solution is quite stable. We haven't had any issues. It's been reliable.

When it comes to scalability, there are no limitations. Azure gives you whatever your environments need. It has all the capabilities to do what you require.

Technical support has been really great. It's one of its selling features. Microsoft is quite supportive and we've been very happy with their level of service so far.

The initial setup wasn't too complex. It was pretty straightforward. We didn't run into any issues in general.

The solution is quite reasonably priced. It costs less than other cloud solutions.

We are Microsoft partners.

I would recommend this product to people. It's safe and Microsoft recommends it as well. Up until this point, it's working great for us. It's excellent at catching attacks and suspicious content. 

Overall, I would rate it at a ten out of ten. It works well for us and offers good performance.

It is for securing traffic. It provides security against OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, so there is a V2 WAF App gateway. 

This product works well to secure my public facing websites from things like sql injections

The health probe is pretty good for your backend health. It tells you whether it's communicating and talking to the endpoint correctly. It is quite useful.

It is a bit tricky to configure in the UI. You've got to configure front end back end ports ips and the  map the listeners & rules for single or multi sites to configure it. They should make it a little bit easier to configure a pre-defined configuration Mapping the certificates from key vault. I think this would make app-gateway much better although it is a very good secure product. Automating this end to end takes a bit of of time to work out but once its done its very secure.

I used it within the last six months. 

Its stability is pretty good. I've had it running now for about six months. 

It scales pretty well. Its availability seems pretty good. As long as you set the metrics right, it will scale efficiently.

Their support is all right. Microsoft's support has covered it pretty well. I would rate them a four out of five.

It is a bit tricky to configure, but once you do it, it is all right. Its configuration is a bit tricky in terms of getting the rules right. You got to get the rules right, and you got to get the endpoints right. The backend is easy enough to configure, but you need to get the rules right. 

The mapping of the certificate got to be done in a very specific way for it to work. Once the certificate is there, pulling that certificate is easy enough, but you've got to map it manually because the configuration settings are quite tricky to do. You've to basically do it in the UI. I've had to do that a couple of times, so I've got it perfect in automation.

I would advise going for OWASP Top 10 filtering. It is a must-have for V2 WAF security.

Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten. It is a good product, and once you get it configured, it does work well.

We use the solution for Internet traffic load balancing and internet traffic routing via proxies to our internal applications. It is not for user connectivity but more for the system to system integration as an application gateway.

Some of the key features of this solution are the low-level maintenance required, floating proxy service, and load balancing.

One of the challenges we faced was the solution does not support any other PCP protocols apart from HTTP and HTTPS. We had some requirement for load balancing that it did not support SAP, they should provide support for more protocols.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The solution is very stable for us at the moment but I think we need more experience in the future to come to a more exact determination on the stability.

We have no problem with the scalability of the solution.

The installation is quite simple.

We have a cloud technical team that does the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

Every solution comes with a license and cost. Microsoft provides the license and the total cost is for the maintenance every year. 

We plan to keep using the solution in the future and I would recommend it to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway an eight 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. 

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.

I use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway from a security perspective.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is a comprehensive product, but it doesn't have too many API integrations.

The support provided for the solution has certain shortcomings that need improvement, especially when it comes to the response time from the support team.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for around three years. My company has a partnership with Microsoft.

My company's clients who use the solution have never reported any stability issues.

It is a scalable solution.

There are around 50 users of the solution in my company. The actual number of users of the solution may vary because we have a lot of our company's customers who use it.

My company deals with medium and enterprise-sized businesses that use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The installation phase of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is very easy.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of hours.

About five people from my company are needed to install and configure the solution.

The solution is deployed on a hybrid cloud.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a pretty affordable product. My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. The additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution vary.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is easy to maintain.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it since it is an extremely good platform.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We tried to integrate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway into our technology stack, but we realized that our service solution didn't see it at all during the integration. But I was played around with it for about two weeks to one month.

We were searching for a WAF solution which we could integrate into our stack and were using the management provided by the agent. We tried to integrate a vacation gateway controller, but we realized that the integration wasn't very good.

The most valuable feature is WAF.

It could be more stable, and support could be better. It would also be better if they offered more features. For example, it lacks security features. Before we used another English solution, and we realized that some of the rules were not set up correctly and passed through the Application Gateway's English controllers. But the problem, in this case, is if you send ten rules, for example, six rules hit some issues. 

IP address blocking could be better. The rules, for example, don't work properly. If you have one issue, one rule or another rule will not work. This sounds like total madness to me.

I used Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for about two weeks to a month.

We got the feeling that this product wasn't stable or good enough for us.

Microsoft technical support could be better. For example, when some rules were disabled and other rules couldn't be disabled, I contacted Microsoft Support. But I didn't get an answer until the next day.

The initial setup was very complex. I spent a lot of time just troubleshooting the backend and figuring out how to connect it correctly. It can take just minutes or hours to sort it by hand using the agent portal. But it took me several days to realize how to set up it using Terraform.

I installed and deployed this solution by myself.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a five.

I primarily use the solution during application deployments. I use it to protect the applications.

The solution offers good protection of applications during deployment. It makes the deployment of applications that are on Azure fairly straightforward.

The solution is easy to set up.

The configuration is very specific right now and needs to be much more flexible. They need to work on it so that it's much easier to configure the solution so that it works how we need it to. It needs to be customizable.

The firewall portion of the gateway is very basic. It needs to be improved upon. It needs to be more robust.

I've been using the solution for a while now.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. We've enjoyed the level of stability provided by the product.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it out a bit, it should be able to do so easily. It's not hard to do so if you need to.

We have about 40 people who are currently using the solution within our organization.

We've dealt with technical support in the past moreso in relation to the cloud solution. They helped us with some technical aspects and we found them to be quite helpful. We're satisfied with the level of support that we've been given so far.

I also have experience with Radware, Fortinet, and Check Point, among other solutions. We use a variety of different solutions within our organization.

The initial setup is not overly complex, to be honest. For our organization, it was quite an easy setup. It was straightforward. A company shouldn't struggle with getting it up and running.

Depending on the configuration, I can handle a deployment over the course of one day or so.

I was able to handle the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of a consultant or integrator.

We're partners with Microsoft.

While, at this moment, Azure is only on the public cloud at this moment, the applications are all deployed on-premises.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. Overall, we've had a good experience.

I would rate this product at a nine out of ten.