Microsoft Azure Reviews

We are primarily using the solution for One Drive on Microsoft, as well as Office 365 and Microsoft Teams.

The solution is easy to use.

It's great for ready-to-use services. 

It's set up to handle any cloud requirement.

The solution is stable. 

The scalability is great.

Microsoft needs to simplify its licensing, which is hard to understand currently.

The security of the solution could always be much better. 

We've been using the solution for three to four years. It's been a while.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability of the product is great. Due to the fact that it is a cloud deployment, it scales well. 

I've used technical support in the past. They are okay. We've been satisfied with them. 

We are also using AWS. 

We have a team that handles the implementation. 

Depending on the situation, you don't need too many people to maintain it. We always start with one resource and go from there. 

The licensing is always confusing with Microsoft. It's very hard to understand. 

Due to the fact that we're using the cloud deployment of the solution, we're always on the latest version. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. Azure is the first ones to come onto the market. They have a very good solution.

I have developed a platform on Azure for the semiconductor industry. Azure is an excellent choice for enterprises in sectors like semiconductors, biochemistry, etc.

To me, the most valuable Azure features are AKS, Cloud SQL, security, and account management.

I've been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

Azure is as stable as most cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud.

Azure is stable but not as scalable as I'd like. In terms of scalability, AWS is better than Azure. In my organization, we have 500 or so employees.

Azure installation is complicated. When we first deployed Azure, it was challenging. By contrast, AWS is easy to install and maintain. Azure is tough. It takes from one to two weeks to fully deploy. Our technical team responsible for deploying and managing Azure has 30 people.

I rate Azure eight out of 10. Azure is difficult to deploy at first, but we have the money to develop, maintain, and support it.

We are resellers. We use Microsoft to provide a service to our customers.

We offer SaaS software for the marketplace. 

We offer SaaS software for the B2B marketplace and provide solutions to our customers through public cloud infrastructure.

We have yet to explore this solution and what it has to offer because we are still in the transformation phase from Amazon to Azure.

It could be more open to external solutions.

Integration with other ecosystems would be beneficial. During this transitional period, this is our primary concern. For example, when we offer solutions to our customers, we must connect to their IT ecosystem, which we are unable to do in some cases.

A good strategy would be to include a feature for integrating with external ecosystems.

We would also like to improve the security.

We switched from Amazon to Azure six months ago.

In the short time that we have been using this solution, it appears to be stable enough for our needs.

We work with 50 companies that use this solution on a daily basis.

We have no issues with the technical support. It's fine.

We needed to find someone who could help us. It depends on the support contract you have with Microsoft. 

The standard level of support was obviously insufficient for us, and we had to resort to a more advanced level of support for partners who had complex technical questions. This meant that there would be some additional support costs, but everything would be fine once you made that decision.

We use Auth0, which is an IAM-based solution.

We are using an identification solution provided by a cloud provider. We are based on Azure. We work with a Microsoft Azure infrastructure, and we use the solution provided by Microsoft to authenticate the users.

It is easy to install.

It took us a few months to deploy. I did not take a lot of time to move to Azure but moving to another infrastructure using microservice takes longer.

We are coming from a moderate approach to installation and going for a modular one that is based on microservices.

To be able to manage the microservices, we made some modifications.

The length of time it took to complete the implementation was primarily due to changes we made to the infrastructure that was required for our customers.

We have a dedicated team of ten people who will deploy and manage the infrastructure.

We have a separate Dev team for the application itself.

Customers pay for our software and use our solution as a service through monthly payments. They don't pay the licensing fee directly to Microsoft.

We provide a solution as a service to our customers. They pay us for our services, which are based on Microsoft.

We would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We use Azure for the Active Directory and integration with Exchange Online. Our customers need it to manage, connect, and administrate the permissions from Cloudbase. Here in Egypt, we are not using or connecting with the cloud-based application, but in the last two years, we have supplied the solution for our customers. In total, we have between 10 and 20 customers using Azure.

I've been working with Microsoft Azure for about two years.

It's a cloud-based application, so installation is straightforward and doesn't take much time.

The price of the Azure license could be cheaper.

I rate Azure nine out of 10. It's a perfect application, and I would recommend it to others.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for Infrastructure as a Service in the cloud. We're using it to get the devices registered and be Azure Ready at home or the office.

The most important thing is we don't have to maintain any physical infrastructure. With typical conventional on-premise solutions, we have to maintain many things like the hardware, clusters, etc. With this cloud platform, you don't have to worry about all those things. We have the service always available, and this is the main advantage.

I like that we use everything on our standard Active Directory on on-premises on Azure. The key advantage is that you can have the sole indication based on the cloud. This isn't possible with an on-premise Active Directory. This enables work from home and at the office because it's on the cloud.

It could be more flexible. If you look at all Mircosoft products, they are not up to the mark. For example, Azure Ready doesn't provide the same kind of access a domain administrator has and the kind of flexibility that they have when using Active Directory. 

Microsoft support could be better. Their service could also be better. For example, specific policies for templates suddenly become unavailable. When I checked, they said that certain things might be withdrawn based on customer feedback. This happened once or twice, and it wasn't available at all for five days, it just went down.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for about ten months.

Microsoft Azure is a stable solution.

Microsoft Azure is a scalable solution. We have close to 1,200 people using this solution at our organization.

I have used Microsoft support before. I would give them a six out of ten. This is because we had certain glitches happen that could have been avoided. For example, they say that this is because it's a new product or the new architecture. They say things like, "it will be more stable after some time, maybe a year or two." 

The initial setup and deployment were straightforward. 

Our in-house team implemented this solution. We have about 15 to 20 people to install and maintain this solution.

We pay yearly for the license. 

I would recommend this cloud computing service to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a nine.

Microsoft Azure can be used for everything, including development, hosting and storage. Since it offers active directory as relates to the cloud, it can be used for directory management and logins.

We work with Azure, which is okay, but very clunky and complex. It lacks fluidity and is not intuitive. This can be problematic and require one to work with external consultants. Things can depend on the client. Not everything can be known in advance and there may be a need to make changes to the interface. Changes which are made to the functionality are not always intuitive. As such, while the solution offers very good functionality, its intuitiveness, in respect of user experience and configuration, is not the best. I should note that these are minor issues and I do not work with Azure very much, there being only a couple environments in which we employ it. 

We see the same issue with Microsoft, which is not an intuitive platform. The ways in which the various components are placed seems to be illogical. There are different screens and end-configurations. In my familiary with Microsoft, a decision was reached to do things this way and there is no way to alter this. 

As such, the solution could definitely be more intuitive. 

The solution is reasonably stable.

The solution is completely scalable. 

I have encountered no issues with Microsoft tech support. 

The setup of everything is very quick, although the real issue revolves around the speed at which the changes get synchronized. While this may take 24 hours, there are occasionally issues which arise, such as problems with the DNS or general networking issues. This requires one to involve Microsoft tech support.

The technical team required for deployment and maintenance can vary. One of the clients with whom I work is an external provider who does all the configuration in Azure. Another has a back-end of Microsoft 365 and I manage this on my own.

Everything involves an annual commitment with a monthly charge.

The solution is also cloud-based.

At present, two of my clients are using the solution. 

I would not recommend the solution to someone who does not require it, instead referring the person to AWS. Like Microsoft Azure, AWS is also not sufficiently intuitive, although it is a more robust solution in my experience. 

I rate Microsoft Azure as a six out of ten. 

The typical use case is where you are trying to avoid investing in a solution that you are only going to be using on a limited basis. You need a pay-as-you-go solution where you can have access when you need it, but you don't have to make a major long-term investment. For example, say you need a software application but you want someone to build that application for you, and you don't want to invest in hardware or networking or other things for on-premise deployment. You can have your solution hosted on the cloud on the Azure platform so that it can be accessed from anywhere and you don't need someone to take care of it or maintain it. You can access your software application from your home or wherever without having to worry about the server going down or anything like that.
In these cases, a cloud-based platform like Azure or Amazon Web Services can be useful.

Azure is very user-friendly. I was able to create some database servers really fast. The user interface is intuitive. I don't work on the networking or firewall side of things. So I'm not familiar with those areas. 

Some of the capabilities available in an on-premise SQL Server aren't available in Azure. For instance, we found Azure Managed Instance to be lacking in certain aspects. One of our clients decided to stay on-premise rather than migrate to Azure because of this reason. Maybe Microsoft is working on building these capabilities in the future, and we are unaware. 

I've been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

With Azure's capabilities, like sharding, we can really scale it up. They also offer features to increase performance, such as the ability to switch between performance tiers as needed.

It's fairly easy, but it really depends on a lot of factors, such as the size of your application, how many databases you have and how many web servers you have. 

We outsource some of the work of the actual deployment to external consultants. And we don't do any work on the hardware side of things ourselves.

Azure uses enterprise licenses, and I believe they are on a yearly basis. One piece of feedback from other users I have heard from is that Azure is somewhat expensive, so I would advise anyone thinking about this solution to be aware of the cost. You need to take into account the configuration you are going with or it could turn out to be a more expensive solution than you anticipated. Sometimes, I feel that it may not be very straightforward for a consumer to estimate the cost. It's important to be clear in terms of your budget and what you're actually purchasing.

I would rate it eight out of 10.

We are using Microsoft Azure for the UAT environment and data warehousing purposes.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately seven years.

The solution is stable.

Microsoft Azure is scalable.

We have 12,000 users using this solution.

I use other cloud services, such as Amazon AWS and Google Cloud services.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We have a team of 30 that does the implementation of the solution.

We are on a monthly subscription for Microsoft Azure and the cost is more expensive than some of the competitors, such as Amazon AWS. They should be more competitive with other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure a seven out of ten.