What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Application Gateway?

Using the Azure calculator, I evaluate projects and create cost prospects. The process is defined by Microsoft's framework and needs specific project assessments.

The solution is fairly priced. On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten.

The solution's pricing is not complex. It is not expensive from our point of view.

The product is cheap.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, with ten being cheap and one being expensive Because of some high costs.

The solution is reasonably priced.

The solution is cheaper than Imperva. I rate it four to five out of ten.

We use the tool's basic subscription. Its licensing costs are monthly.

The product is not expensive. The enterprise customer I work with has never complained about the cost of the solution. It is quite cheap. I rate the pricing a five out of ten. We pay egress fees, too.

The price of the product is okay. There is a need to pay a fixed price per month to use the product. There are no additional payments to be made to Microsoft apart from the charges paid towards the monthly licensing costs attached to the solution.

The product is expensive.

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.

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 price of the solution can be reduced a bit.

I'm not familiar with Azure pricing for this product, but I know that it is billed based on usage.

It is relatively expensive but still within our budget, especially compared to more expensive alternatives like Barracuda. There's no license. It's a cloud-based solution. As we are already fully on Azure, it leverages other functionalities and remains cost-effective.

The solution is paid monthly. The solution is highly expensive.

The solution is reasonably priced compared to other solutions.

The pricing is based on how much you use the solution. This format is good because you don't have to pay for a yearly license that you rarely use.

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.

There is some additional cost, such as extended support.

Between v1 and v2, there is a lot of change in the pricing. It is very costly compared to AWS. Our main implementation strategy is based around the pricing. If there are any technical features that we need to consider in addition, we will. If the prices for those additional features are okay then we will use them.

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

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

It is not expensive.

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

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

The solution is expensive.

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.