Microsoft Azure Reviews

We're using Azure Premium P1 and it hosts our website and most of the applications we use. We are an airline company and for some of our enterprise apps, it enables things like single sign-on and hosts most of our virtual machines, as well as some of our web servers for the on-prem application. Our customer mobile app for purchasing tickets is for that purpose but we also use it for enterprise apps. I use Minecraft for my email security, but I integrate it with Azure to incorporate the single sign-on, as well as for multifactor authentication in my Office 365 environment, and the productive Parti app. I'm an IT security specialist and we are customers of Azure.

The feature I appreciate is that everything is basically shift forward from a security standpoint. Most of our systems are integrated with Azure for authentication purposes. Given that I'm a security specialist I use it for that purpose. The rest of the team uses it more for things like application deployment. I also use it to determine sign-ons, and things like compliance to devices. 

Microsoft allows you, via Azure, to have different authentication methods. You can use the Microsoft Authenticator app, text or voice, or something called a FIDO, which is like a USB security key. Unfortunately, the authentication method only allows me to have up to 90 users, and there are 2,300 people in the company. When I have to push multifactor authentication, I cannot specify certain users for the authenticator app. It forces me to lock it down and say conditional access only allowed.

Another issue I have is that Microsoft notifies me retroactively about certain things. For example, when a user sends an email with over 200 recipients, it can take half an hour for me to get a notification but sometimes it can take 24 hours. I have the same issue when it comes to things like phishing attempts. It's a problem. 

I've been using Azure for three years. 

The solution is stable, although I'd like some advance warning when they make changes. It can sometimes take hours to update so that if I have a user using multifactor authentication and I take them off, it can take up to an hour for it to take effect.

Technical support is very good. 

I can only speak from my own experience and I have many Microsoft certificates, including as a Microsoft solution architect expert in Azure, so it might be easier for me than it is for others. I tend to do a lot of things on the app and I use it on a daily basis. Even if I don't know where something is, the documentation on techniques, everything is there. I wasn't involved in the deployment at this company but in my previous position, it took a couple of days, not very long. Microsoft provided support. It's just a matter of configuring the tenant.

I would recommend Azure because there's a lot of documentation available and a lot of user guides, it has everything. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

We use Microsoft Azure for our IDB. That is our primary use, but we also have a certain degree of MDM through Microsoft.

It does what it is supposed to do, and what we expected of it. That's the key benefit. Being cloud-based saves the provisioning aspect of an on-premises solution.

The support subscription models need improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

We are using the latest version.

Microsoft Azure is a stable solution.

As far as we have expanded it, it is scalable. It's a startup company, we haven't scaled it to a significant number of people yet.

We have between 100 and 150 people in our organization who use Microsoft Azure.

I don't think that we will expand our usage at the moment.

I have contacted technical support on one occasion. My biggest issue with the technical support of Microsoft is when we had an issue that was product-related and it was difficult to get support on the subscription level we were on. In order to try to get support, we were told that we needed to upgrade. It was quite frustrating that an issue with their product required an upgrade to get serviced when it was a failure that they were responsible for.

It's not a question of knowledge, the knowledge was there. Access to that knowledge and the subscription model they were trying to put in place was the issue.

I used to work for Oracle. My previous experience was with Oracle Enterprise Manager.

I wasn't present or involved at the time of installation. I came along later. I started with the company after that.

Licensing fees are paid monthly.

We are currently in the process of deploying Zabbix to cover our monitoring needs. We have used other monitoring products which come with certain components.

From my point of view, it would depend on the type of solution and everything they were trying to encompass. In our case, it made sense to go with Azure. I think that for other companies, I would recommend that it's a good solution, but that depends on what problem you are trying to solve. It also depends on what infrastructure is already in place, and whether you want to have a lot of disparate systems communicating, or whether you want to consolidate that to a specific vendor. But for the purposes of what we needed Azure to do, it does the job. However, we don't use all of the MS Apps functionality.

It does the job, but it doesn't wow me. I am pretty happy with it. I don't get overly excited about it, but I am not disappointed with it. I would rate Microsoft Azure a six out of ten.

We are customers of Microsoft and I'm the IT technical manager. 

The most valuable feature for me is the high level of availability and the 99% uptime of the system. I also appreciate the technical simplicity of the system in terms of implementation.

I'm currently based in the Philippines and the availability of services locally could be improved. Technically speaking, I'd like to see more flexibility in terms of storage or resource allocation. Resourcing is currently quite fixed so that if you want to move between level two and level three resources, or customize resources, you can't do that. The discrepancy in terms of costing is around $200. If they improved flexibility for selecting resources it would be easier for us to get the costing approved.

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

The solution is stable, one of the most reliable in the Philippines. The downside is that currently all the services are outside the country. Singapore and Hong Kong provide the closest service but we have laws that prohibit certain amounts of data residing in other countries. None of that affects stability. 

One of the key takes from using cloud services is scalability and flexibility. If a company hits some roadblocks financially, they can reduce infrastructure and also reduce what they use in the cloud lowering the cost. 

I've had several outages or major issues and I've had good experience with technical support. They resolved the problems in less than a day. The only downside is that in the Philippines you're dealing with the vendor and not Microsoft direct. I have two steps of support; if the vendor can't provide the support, then they escalate to Microsoft. 

The initial setup is quite simple. We currently have 20 users on the infrastructure side in addition to 20+ developers.

We have difficulty in getting the costing approved. We pay for a virtual machine and the resources currently implemented there, then we need a license from Microsoft Windows OS and the database itself. In our latest license purchase, the manager approved a monthly fee of around $2,000 for the resources we use. If you're going to the cloud, that's currently included in the cost and will be less if you have the software assurance from Microsoft; on-prem is more expensive.

The big takeaway on this product is the high availability of the system on cloud and reduction of on-prem costing. There are no concerns about the electrical doing some redundancy in between, cooling, purchasing, procurement of IT equipment. Instead of budgeting based on CAPEX, we're doing it from an OPEX point of view. One of the key takes for moving to the cloud is the cost. You can leverage with the cloud and let go of some things required to maintain a system on-prem, the kinds of things that alleviate some complexity in doing maintenance of the system. The solution is suitable for any size company. 

I highly recommend Microsoft Azure. Everyone knows Microsoft so the learning curve is easier. I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

It has multiple features that can be used from the start.

It is easy to use.

I would like to see support for the applications that are currently in place. Ideally, Microsoft Azure should be compatible with the applications that we are using in my environment.

I am not using Microsoft Azure, but I have been doing an assessment for the last five years.

I am using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

Microsoft Azure is a scalable solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

The installation is handled by another team. I was not involved in the installation of this solution.

As of now, there are no monthly or yearly subscription fees.

Definitely, I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We don't use DevOps; we just use the Azure Cloud platform. The solution is primarily used for PaaS and FaaS.

The solution has been very stable.

We find the product to be scalable. 

The security network inside of the information on the network is very good.

Technical support, from what I understand, is quite helpful and we speak with them regularly.

There aren't really any issues with the product itself. For us, the problems are organizational and the processes inside the company, which uses Azure, aren't as clear. They need to define a good process and a good implementation strategy going forward. We only really have issues with what they want to do, and not the technology itself. Basically, the technology is not the problem. It is just the way we want to use it.

It would always be nice to have even more integration capabilities.

A company needs to have strong finance managers. It could cost a lot if you haven't got a finance function inside each company.

The installation process is complex. 

The pricing could always be better and a bit more standardized.

I've been using the solution for five years at this point. It's been a while. 

The solution is very stable and reliable. The performance is good. It's not buggy. there aren't glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product has been very scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

At this time, I'm not sure exactly how many people are directly using the solution.

While I haven't personally used technical support, our company does have a technical account manager on the Azure side and we are coordinating each week to identify all the topics we need to address - including our disaster recovery plan, which is important to the company right now. 

We did not previously use a different solution before we chose to work with Azure. 

The installation process is not very straightforward. 

When you want to install with a higher level of security inside the infrastructure, nothing communicates. Therefore, engineering security and network engineers need to understand what they have to do exactly, and what the problem is. With Aure, there's a learning curve for installation. You need to work with it for at least one year before you get comfortable enough and are able to troubleshoot and configure everything relatively well.

The solution has the potential to be expensive if you as a company are not careful as to how you use it. 

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. For me, it's a perfect product and I enjoy its capabilities. 

I would recommend this solution to other users and organizations. 

I am a manager of a team and we will have approximately 18 applications that will be cloud-based using this solution.

One of the most valuable features of Microsoft Azure is the compatibility with all of our Windows applications and other Microsoft technologies.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately one year.

The solution could improve the stability. However, this could be a configuration issue that we are not been trained.

There is good community support available.

I have previously used AWS and GCP.

Microsoft Azure is more expensive than other solutions, such as GCP. We have found that GCP offers more utilities at a very reasonable price. I think the reason we are having a discount is because of the bank contract we have.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a server for some applications. 

As a software data center, we can put some pretty cool applications running there.

The stability is very good. It's reliable. 

We have found the scalability to be good. 

The pricing is reasonable. It's not too expensive.

They develop so fast, it's hard to trace the technology. They have a lot of folders, for example, and it's hard to keep up with changes. 

The deployment was quite complex. It's not easy to implement. 

I've been using the solution for about a year or so. It hasn't been that long so far.

The stability of the product is very good. It doesn't have bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's been very reliable for the most part.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to scale it out, it can do so. It's not a problem at all. 

We haven't really used support so far. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

The initial setup isn't exactly straightforward. The deployment is a complex process.

We're happy with the licensing pricing in general. It's not overly expensive. 

We have a business relationship with Microsoft.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. We've been largely happy with its capabilities in general. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution for the active directory, and Microsoft TPM. 

The product has helped in managing laptops during COVID. It is very useful to work from home. It offers useful products like Microsoft Teams, used by 100% of our company. Due to the fact that it's all on the cloud, we don't have to be in the office to access and manage everything. 

The management aspect of the solution has been good. We've been able to align it with our laptop servers and Microsoft 10 configurations. 

The solution continues to improve itself. 

The monitoring of the product is good.

Scalability is there if you need it. 

The solution is stable. 

Technical support has been good over the years. 

The pricing could be better. 

If you don't understand Microsoft, the initial setup can be a bit difficult. You have to be slightly technical. 

I've been using the solution for about four years. It's been a while. I've had some time to get to know the solution. 

The stability of the solution has been excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or free. the performance is good. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. it's not a problem. 

Technical support is good. We haven't had any issues with them. We're satisfied with the level of support we get. 

The initial setup is easy if you understand Microsoft and have some experience. Otherwise, it is very difficult.

We'd prefer lower pricing. Microsoft can be costly. Due to COVID, many small companies can't handle the costs that Microsoft is charging. They need to be more flexible. If customers were going through cloud solutions, they should get more of a discount. 

We are Microsoft customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the company. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've mostly been quite please with the product and its capabilities.