Microsoft Azure Logic Apps Reviews

I use the solution in my company as a part of the centralized landscape where we have it for the internal connectivity before any traffic comes in, so we use it for a safe API management gateway. Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is the main tool for API management. It is used to manage our main workflow.

The reason for using the tool is that our company has not restricted itself to one tool. We have an integration board that decides based on the use cases because we have multiple technologies. Earlier, MuleSoft was used, and now we have Azure and OpenText, depending on the use case. If the use case involves file mover, then we move that piece of integration to file mover part. If there are any workflows or any processing required, any business logic is involved, and if there is any real-time stuff involved, then we go for Microsoft Azure Logic Apps. If there is a batch processing part, we go for real-time services again within Microsoft.

In MuleSoft, some set views help in transformation, which is very user-friendly and easy to use. In Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, we use Liquid templates, and I feel it can be improved as it does not support all the features that our company wants to use during any complex mapping when we might have to go for custom coding.

I have been using the tool for a year.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Depending on the kind of scalability that my company wants, I would say that that product supports any kind of scalability feature. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

There are more than 50 end users or developers of the tool.

There are some delays in response from the solution's technical support. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

From a development point of view, MuleSoft is good, but from what I know I would say that it is costly. MuleSoft is pretty much easier for new developers to onboard because you can quickly learn and start using it. In Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, there is not much need for any grooming if someone wants to efficiently work on the tool.

The product's initial setup phase is something that I don't think is complex because once we start using it, it becomes simple. If the user, our developer, is doing it for the first time, then he or she might need to understand the architecture in terms of closing and those things. Otherwise, it is simple. We have two types of deployments there, containers and no servers thing, where we have an App Service plan similar to the vCores concept we have in MuleSoft.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

Compared to the prices of Mulesoft, the price of Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is low.

I am not much aware of the infrastructure part because I am from the development side. The other team has taken care of the infrastructure part.

Right now, as I said, we are into Azure Integration Services, so we use services like Logic Apps, Azure Functions, and Service Bus for messaging. Different services are used for different purposes depending on different use cases.

Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is quite similar to NetApp. It does most of the functionality in terms of process transformations and connectors or where we connect to the end systems. We have all out-of-the-box connectors to connect to any system, like SAP or whichever systems are available.

Critical functions of the tool are associated with the workflow area. The tool helps in fulfilling our company's requirements.

There is AI available for the tool, but I haven't used the solution.

Under some conditions, we can recommend the tool to other users or if someone wants to upgrade from an existing Microsoft legacy migration to App Logic since we can reuse much of the functionality of the other tool in it. I would recommend the tool to others. If you are starting from scratch, then we can go with MuleSoft, provided some other factors are good.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Our customers use SAP to create approval requests from their managers, like PO requests and approval and leave requests. Everything is generated from SAP. We pull the information from SAP and send it to the manager on Microsoft Teams. A manager needs to approve it on Teams instead of SAP. The solution builds connectivity between Teams and SAP.

The prebuilt connectors available for SAP are really useful. The solution is easy to use and has a plug-and-play or drag-and-drop concept. We can create connectors easily. We don't have to do too much R&D and write codes to make it work.

The solution could add an AI version to make it easier for people. Microsoft is deploying Copilot across all the platforms like Microsoft 365, Teams, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and everything. Azure can also add Copilot to the product to make it easier for developers.

I have been working with the product for the last five years. I am using the latest version of the solution. I help Microsoft partners to scale their business in the Middle East, Africa, and Central and Southeast Europe. I run alliances or sales as a service for Microsoft ISVs.

The product is very stable. I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution has high scalability. Currently, we have 100 users. Eventually, we will scale to 3000 users. We serve all types of clients, particularly medium enterprises. However, the solution can be scaled to any business. I rate the solution’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

We are very happy with customer support.

Positive

I have used Power Automate. I used Power Automate in one of our solutions for our customers. It runs in more than 800 stores and has around 20,000 users.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. I rate the ease of setup an eight or nine out of ten. The product is deployed on the cloud. The setup takes around one month from the testing to production. It also includes the time for the team to get educated about the solution. We were more familiar with Power Automate. We had to do a little bit of reading first to deploy the solution.

To deploy the product, we downloaded a trial version, experimented, looked at the menus, downloaded available resources, joined the community, and sought some help from Microsoft, our technical partners, and development managers. There's a lot of documentation available. We reviewed the documentation too.

The tool’s pricing could be better. I rate the solution’s pricing a four out of ten on a scale where one is low, and ten is the high price. The product is not pricey. It is a pay-per-use model. The more transactions we do, the higher we will be charged. We are charged for the actual transactions.

People considering using the solution should find out their business use case. Some applications are very heavy on transactions. They should be careful about the total number of sessions they will need to purchase. The solution is fantastic if the business use case does not require too many transactions. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We mostly work with Power Automate, but we do have some experience with Logic Apps. For example, if a user makes a request and we need to process their data, we can easily develop an Azure Logic App for that. 

Sometimes, we combine Power Automate and Logic Apps. For example, a user wants to view specific data and sends a request. We can easily collect that data using Azure, along with a combination of Power Automate and Logic Apps where appropriate. We use Power Automate for external interactions and have it call Logic Apps within our application.

A customer registers on our platform. We perform a lot of validation. We call services from different applications to validate the user's identity, PAN number, and other information against government records. 

We apply a sequence of business logic to validate the customer before registering them for the application.

When we initially built the registration system for our application, we used Power Apps and Power Automate to perform the validation. We call different services through Power Automate to validate the input given by the user.

Currently, we use web services, SQL connectors, and a self-connector. We choose the connector based on where we are getting the data from.

Moreover, the visual design experience wasn't complex. It was easier, as usual. The overall experience is good. The user interface and everything are very intuitive, and we were able to easily consume all those services.

Logic Apps helped reduce complexity or development time. For example, if we get documents in the form of images, we can use Logic Apps to extract information from those images. This simplifies our efforts compared to originally using Microsoft APIs to do the same task.

The only thing is, sometimes, when we need a specific connector, it requires an enterprise or paid version. If it were possible to provide the most commonly used connectors for pulling data from different sources free of cost, that would be really nice.

For every connector, we have to pay. The cost factor is a problem. For every good connector, we're paying twice – once for the SQL Server connector and again for other data source connectors. It would be concerning if I had to pay for every connector I need. Microsoft can do something about that.

I have been using it for two years. 

It's stable if the deployed application has proper resources.

We can scale the application as and when required. There are ways to scale when there are more rules. From a scalability point of view, it's easy to configure, and we can scale the application as needed.

We have around more than 1000 end users. We have several applications working together. During each process, we pull data from different applications, and those are very well integrated with both Azure services and Power Automate. We've also been using UiPath for certain operations.

So, Logic Apps support our needs for scaling workflows or applications.

The customer service and support are good. 

The initial setup is not complex. It was intuitive and straightforward. 

The deployment process is pretty straightforward. We just publish it, and it's easy, similar to how our Power Apps applications are deployed to production.

Deployment doesn't require many resources. We had a DevOps team taking care of it. We have 15+ taking care of it who collaborated with the development team to take care of it. 

It is worth it to use it. The product does a good job. 

For cloud, Logic Apps are good. I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I always encourage people to use Logic Apps if the environment with Azure native because the development time is drastically reduced. 

Therefore, I always encourage people to explore Power Apps and Power Automate instead of going with native mobile application development or React Native application development.

We use Azure Logic Apps for orchestration and as a workflow engine. It's more about building and managing workflows. For instance, the tool can create a single integration that aggregates data from various sources. This capability is one advantage Azure has over solutions like MuleSoft.

One special aspect of Azure Logic Apps is its easy integration of various applications, especially when connectors are already available. For instance, there are connectors for database applications and systems like SAP. You can drag and drop the connectors to complete your integration quickly.

An area for improvement for Azure Logic Apps could be enhancing its ability to handle large datasets. When dealing with extensive data, we often have to use Azure Data Factory, which is mostly limited to scheduled jobs.

When we contact support, there is often a delay in resolving issues. They do not match MuleSoft's level of support.

Neutral

I can't provide specific details on the return on investment from Azure Logic Apps, as we haven't used it extensively in our projects. However, I can mention that it does offer the potential for a quicker setup of integrations due to its wide range of available connectors. If you're working with applications that have connectors within the solution, the process of building and deploying integrations can be faster. 

We often use Azure Functions to create integrations, perhaps even more than Azure Logic Apps, mainly due to technical considerations. We choose which component to use based on its suitability for the task and the specific technical requirements. For instance, Azure Logic Apps might not be the best choice for transforming large datasets, like moving 200-300 megabytes from the cloud. Instead, it was easier to handle this using Azure Functions. With Azure Functions, we could transform data from XML and then cache it. 

I would recommend Azure Logic Apps, especially for small organizations looking to expand their integration capabilities over time. With Azure Logic Apps, you pay for what you use, allowing you to scale your investment alongside your integration needs. Starting at as little as 100 dollars a month, you can gradually increase your investment as your integration matures.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

With Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, we can orchestrate and pull event-based triggers. We can use the solution to schedule a workflow based on any new record inserted into our database.

The solution's best feature is that it is compatible with the cloud and has many connectors and third-party adapters. You can connect it with almost every system.

We have lots of other systems. When we raised a complaint with Microsoft, they asked us not to use the solution for a particular purpose. We wanted to use Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, but we faced a timeout. We had a call with Microsoft regarding one of the issues. The support person with whom I was discussing was also not very comfortable with that question.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Logic Apps for the last one year.

We are working on the same technology in our company. Approximately 40 to 50 people on our team use Microsoft Azure Logic Apps.

The solution's customer support depends on the type of partner you are. If you are a gold partner, they will reply immediately. However, if you have a lower level of collaboration with Microsoft, they will take some time. The technical support team does fix issues, but they take time.

The initial setup of the solution would be a bit difficult if you are using CI/CD. CI/CD, container integration, and container deployment are one-time processes. Setting them up once makes the rest of the deployment easier. If you don't do it initially, you have to copy and paste, which will take time. I suggest you invest time in creating a CI/CD to avoid the later dependencies or consequences of not using CI/CD.

You will be charged too much if you are unaware of the solution's cost. Initially, when I was doing my development and POCs, one day, I forgot to close the connection or the artifact I created. The next morning, I learned that INR 40,000 had been deducted from my credit card.

Some companies use the solution for monetary benefits. Other companies upgrade their technology to compete with other technologies. In my current organization, everything is working fine, but they must also upgrade their technology. They were not saving money with the tool but had to upgrade themselves in technology.

You should be aware of the solution's configuration. You don't have to write any code, even for your basic work needs. However, you do have to configure some things and be aware of the triggers and actions. There is also a lot of help available on Google and YouTube to do it.

We have to write the code in such a manner that the next person who is using it or visiting that particular code should be aware. If you don't write properly what type of work you are doing inside a particular code, it'll be very difficult to identify what you have done. If I pick one particular action, the action should be very clear about what I'm doing in that action.

Otherwise, it will be very messy. If you use the default naming structure, it will be like one, two, or three variables. If you do not write the proper name of that variable, it'll be very difficult to identify what type of work you were doing inside that scope, function, or action.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use the product for internal data transfers. It has replaced Data Factory in our organization because of the complexity of the data transfers.

The tool’s biggest benefit is the access we have to other Azure products. We can use all the Azure services directly. I like the product. It is the best choice for use cases involving Azure products.

The visual tool that is used to build integration is quite old. It’s really hard to see all the different models at the same time. It must be modernized, and better support must be provided for the visual tool. The tool must provide support for OpenAPI. We create connectors out of some OpenAPI documentation, but they are really old versions.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable. It is as stable as Azure.

The tool is not easily scalable. If we want to run it on a dedicated server, it requires an extra server or virtual machine in the background, which is costly. Two people in our company are using the tool. We rarely need to maintain the solution. We conduct maintenance procedures once every three months.

The technical support could be better. The documentation is not optimum. The documentation training and tutorials are minimal and quite old.

The initial setup took some time. We had to create all the resources in Azure. It was done manually three years ago. We took around one and a half days to set everything up. The solution is cloud-based.

The ROI is really high. Having all the different Azure services integrated directly into the tool is handy.

The product is quite cheap. However, when the use cases get bigger, it gets more costly. We would need to have our own server in the background at some point, which would be very costly. It’s cheap if the use cases are low.

If someone has really good use cases in Azure, they should use Logic Apps to transfer data. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for some of our internal projects. We have some workflows defined for which we felt Microsoft Azure Logic Apps would be the best suited because it requires an approval process. Once the approval is given, some keys are given to the users, and those are temporary keys, after which Microsoft Azure Logic Apps makes sure that after a certain period of time, maybe a few days, those keys are removed from the system.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the entire workflow that we get. We can keep it in suspended motion. We can restart it, resume Microsoft Azure Logic Apps again, and build it easily. There are multiple instances in which the same Microsoft Azure Logic Apps can run.

Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is good for certain types of workloads, but it doesn't offer many customization options. Considering the current features of the tool, one area I could think of is probably a spot where you can run some kind of script, a task that will just run a script since if it is provided in the tool, one can do much more than what one does currently.

In the future, I would like the product to provide a particular task for running scripts.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Logic Apps for four years. I am an end-user of the tool.

It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company hasn't really tried out the scalability part associated with the product.

The product can be recommended for businesses depending on their use cases and the company's size. If it fits your use case, you can use it. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter whether it's the company's smaller, medium, or large.

I don't remember contacting the solution's technical support team.

The product's initial setup phase is simple.

The solution is deployed on the cloud-based model.

Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is a little bit expensive, and that is why you use it only for certain types of scenarios.

My company did not test the integration capabilities of the product since we did not have to deal with such use cases.

I haven't used any AI feature with Microsoft Azure Logic Apps.

I can recommend the product to others.

I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for small use cases like transformations or doing an additional call to get extra information and enrich data. 

The drag-and-drop UI is very helpful because you don't need to open an editor to start writing in Logic Apps. 

There are predefined connectors to do API calls or connect to a database. 

The solution is very easy for new users because it includes very good documentation and transparency. 

The scalability could be improved. 

I have been using the solution for six months. I am still on the learning curve as a new adapter of the technology. 

The solution is quite stable so I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The scalability is good for simple use cases in Logic Bus. At some point, you might have to move to the Service Bus for more complicated use cases that require error handling or complex logic. 

I rate scalability a seven out of ten. 

I have not needed technical support. 

In the past, I have used WSO2, SnapLogic, and AWS solutions but have not seen a comparable product to the solution. 

The setup is simple. 

We implemented the solution in-house using pipelines based on written and Terraform. 

I recommend the solution for integration providers and rate it a seven out of ten.