Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for web applications and APIs.

So far, so good, but there are some capabilities we would like to investigate further, such as distributed denial of service (DDoS) and other similar features.

It does an excellent job of load balancing. The Application Gateway is performing load balancing, but we must decide whether to continue using the Gateway's firewall or to use another firewall. That's what we're looking at.

The increased security that we are considering is because of some of the things that the security team has brought to our attention. They have pointed out that we would most likely require a better web application firewall than Azure Application Gateway. That's the issue, that we are looking into.

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

We are working with version two.

We have no issues with the stability of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway, so far it has been good.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a scalable solution. We have not had any issues with scalability.

It's an external customer base.

The initial setup is straightforward. We do not have any issues with that, we are completely in control of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway.

We completed the deployment ourselves.

The cost is not an issue. It's not about finding a less expensive solution. It's about the additional costs we might incur if we with Cloudflare or another similar service provider.

We are not facing any additional costs. We must consider the additional costs that will be incurred if we choose a more advanced firewall.

I'm looking into web application firewalls and comparing Cloudflare with Azure's firewall. We are currently using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and were considering the benefits and costs of upgrading to Cloudflare.

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

We primarily used the solution to try to protect a few internet-facing applications that we had.

The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs.

The functionality needs a lot of improvement.

The security of the product could be adjusted.

The scalability needs improvement.

Overall, it just wasn't a great product. It was lacking in a lot of areas.

Just watching the industry, it could be that Microsoft, is going to have to give more resources to it in order to make it work. Microsoft knows a lot about software. They're going to have to get more resources into it and add people and time to it to make it competitive. They may even need to consider some sort of acquisition to bring in new tech. Right now, the solution just isn't there in terms of what is needed and expected.

The solution simply has to be more comparable to other leading product s at this point. It's just lacking the overall intelligence to compete.

We've been playing around with the solution for about a year at this point.

The stability is good from the standpoint of it works like it was intended to work. That said, it's not really functional enough to be able to have any type of confidence in it. If stability for a company just means that it stands there and it does what it's supposed to do, then, from that standpoint, it's stable.

In terms of scalability, we looked at a lot of different things, and put a lot of work in, including meeting with Microsoft. However, truth be told, we know and Microsoft knows that the product is just not where it needs to be. It's not a secret. Therefore, I wouldn't say it's completely scalable.

Currently, there may be a few hundred people on the solution.

Microsoft has been with us throughout the process, and they've been pretty good from a technical support standpoint. We're satisfied with the level of service we have been provided.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It wasn't complex.

In terms of the configuration, one of the things users have to understand is that the configuration is very specific. Our knowledge may have slowed the process, however, I don't think it was a bad configuration process. We probably got it done and then tested it over the course of a month, or a few months, or so. That was just testing. Looking at everything within the configuration for what we needed only takes - it end to end - a day.

It doesn't take a genius to get everything up and running. You need a technical person that can follow the directions because you do have things outside of the software that has to be considered, however, it really doesn't take a genius to do it.

We only need three people to maintain the solution and deploy any updates.

I don't handle the billing aspect of the solution, therefore I don't know anything about the licensing costs for it.

We're a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We tend to use the latest versions of the solution.

I wouldn't recommend the solution. I'd advise others to look for something else on the market that has access to a cloud.

I'd rate the solution one out of ten. It's a security product that needs to be functional, and at this point, it's simply not.

The gateway is used to make the application connect to the internet and apply some firewall rules on Layer 7. We primarily use Azure Gateway for printers, some requests, and to apply some security rules to all the traffic that is coming from inside the Azure network. 

We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities.

The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems.

The solution is stable. We've never faced any stability problems while using it.

While I believe the option to scale exists on Azure, we have never needed to scale. I can't speak to how scalable it actually is. We've had two projects on Azure and we have had as many as 5,000 users on the solution with no problem.

We've never had to deal with technical support, as I don't really use any deep technical items on the solution.

Compared to other public clouds, the price is fairly high. I'm not sure if the pricing model has changed, but I recall it being slightly more expensive.

We are using the public cloud deployment model. We are both a customer and a reseller, but I myself have worked with Azure mainly as a customer.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is used mainly for data transformation from on-premise to cloud or from cloud to on-premise. We are only using this solution extensively for web applications.

The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are the policies, the data store they are using, and the cloud platform it operates on.

The solution could improve security.

In the next release, the solution could improve the integration with Service Mesh and other Azure Security Services.

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

We have approximately 50 users using this solution in my organization. They are developers and VDAs.

The support that they provide could be faster.

The implementation was done by our IT team of engineers and administrators.

There is some additional cost, such as extended support.

If you are a native Azure user, I would recommend this solution as long as you don't have any other security solution options.

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

We use it for load balancing and web application firewall. We are using the latest version. We also have version 2.

Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable.

It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Application Gateway for more than two years. 

We haven't really tried to scale it much. We have several users in our organization.

We don't need any support at this moment in time. If needed, we also get Microsoft to support us.

It is not that straightforward. There are some issues with the latest application gateway. Deployment is easy and takes only 30-45 minutes, but there are some issues with its configuration.   

I deployed it myself along with other colleagues. 

It is not expensive.

I would recommend this solution depending on the customers' requirements. We have a discussion with the customer and then offer the solution. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure Application Gateway a seven out of ten. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for exposing services to the internet. We are Microsoft partners and I am the company's consultant for Azure Cloud Infra & Apps.

I think the WAF feature is valuable, it replicates your firewall. It's one of the features in the application gateway and that's in a layer 7-based firewall with layer 7-based features. We use this feature a lot in the application gateway.

Scalability can be a bit of an issue although it's better in v2. I'd also like to see increased flexibility. There are limits when you want to share an application gateway across multiple clusters. I know Microsoft is working on that, but we don't know when it will be finished and released to the public.

I've been using this solution for around seven years. 

This is a stable product. 

As mentioned, there are some issues with scalability which will hopefully be solved soon. We have many customers using this solution that have more than 100 application gateways.

Technical support is fine - we have a lot of interaction with Microsoft Corp in Seattle. We help improve their products by participating in a few programs and testing features to improve their functionality and reviewing the end product. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward, deployment took a couple of hours. We're consultants so we do it ourselves. 

Because of our partnership with Microsoft we have an input Microsoft first policy. If none of their solutions are applicable or available, then we look to another solution, but that is not the case here. 

I would recommend this solution. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.