Top Rated Azure Application Gateway Alternatives
Video Reviews
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway as Software as a Service
198 Azure Application Gateway Reviews
Overall Review Sentiment for Azure Application Gateway
Log in to view review sentiment.
-URL/URI load balancing
-connection draining
-custom error pages Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
User interfaces needs to be improved.Does not have flexibility to used public IPs Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Azure is an ecosystem that has almost all the services. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Few regions in Asia Pasific are not available. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Cost saving and time consuming is less and processed faster Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Sometime connection issues,................ Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The gateway works as expected once appropriately configured. The tool is a native of the Azure platform so works well with other services and no issues were encountered while configuration or after deployment. Another benefit is that you can automate its deployment once you know the entire configuration. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The documentation is a little bit incomplete and confusing. The terminologies are also somewhat confusing for complete newbies. The major drawback is that you require all the information beforehand before configuring the Gateway otherwise you'll have to go round and round configuring it again and again. The automated deployment template gives off some issues and needs fixing sometimes. Also, the deployment time is also quite long and needs some improvement. The gateway documentation is complete but very tedious to browse through. This could be improved as this causes delays when we need to quickly deploy something and some error is encountered. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The best things in Azure Application Gateway is the way it autoscales to the needed load. Cloud is supposed to be exactly about this; automatically scaling resources for the demand. Azure does this probably best in the market. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Different application gateway Tiers can be confusing, as they represent something only existing in Azure world. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
WAF is integrated with Application gateway whereas there are other third party products available and thus increase overall cost. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Type and Version is sometimes create confusion such as V1 and V2 cannot be cleared described in the portal to confirm which version of App gateway are we using. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The best part I liked about it was the routing of an HTTP request based on the URI, which made it easier for me to make routing calls to different APIs.
One more thing that I liked about it was the more straightforward integration with other endpoints. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The things I disliked about app gateway were I felt the price was on a higher side, there should be more data packet filtering options available on the app gateway level.
Logging needs to be more refined for the app gateway. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
re-uploading root certificate to an existing Application Gateway doesn't undergo any downtime, and hence the best part, in my view Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
1) Moving your Application Gateway from SKU tier standard to SKU tier standard_v2 or vice versa needs downtime as Azure won't allow you to do this if the subnet used for both are the same.
2) If using Application Gateway (SKU tier standard_v2), it becomes mandatory to use a static Private IP, and I can't create the Private IP's dynamically using terraform
3) If using Application Gateway (SKU tier standard_v2), it becomes mandatory to use a Public IP even if I do not want to use the same and want to communicate to the other application internally via Private IP.
Public IP sits without any listener associated with it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
It's good to use for load balancing, and you will get rid of your webserver. I also liked the logs monitoring and the metrics collected. The redirection of http to https is easy to be applied. It has also many features like TLS/SSL termination, routing decisions based on URI path, and WAF. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
It was all great except for Websockets. The WebSocket was not returning data, but the application established the connection. I was unable to discover why. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
