Microsoft Azure Reviews

Azure is a big world with potential things that we have to check and learn. We have Azure as the data analytics, artificial intelligence, and much more. I work with technology like Microsoft, Symantec, and with Azure connectivity online, like SaaS.

We are integrators for AWS and Azure.

I don't know the exact number of users because we work with different customers. So one customer is only servicing one, another customer has probably 300, another customer has probably 500. We have different customers with a different number of users that use this technology.

With the Azure solution, you can get more value from your cloud investment no matter what your future goals are. It depends on your level of familiarity with the cloud you are using or with your computing. Azure helps you with every stage of the cloud. When you start using Azure, you don't even buy it. It's just a simple sign-in and a free account, and you get free services. It's a great way to get into that kind of technology. That's why I've been using this solution for almost eight years.

They have a feature from the network, the communication, so the firewall is the most communication that we can find when we try to work with the Azure platform. Perhaps it's our environment, and that not all the customers are familiar with how to work with cloud technologies. For that reason, it's the most communication that we can find. I am in the Azure service sales, and that is one of the features that can help you to stay informed and take any action in the area that you found a thing generated for.

It has a personalized dashboard for service issues. You can check the Azure service help, and you can find any issue that you have in your platform. It's a safe point to check when you have an issue, so you can manage the issue and learn how to track that issue, and you can more effectively execute plans that you have to scale or that you have to put in action using Azure bots.

They have free coursework that you can check on the website, and a free update that you can find for SQL server security. We are more familiar with Azure, so maybe we have to wait a couple of years to get more familiar with AWS.

Something that could be added to the solution is the use of deep learning, which is going to grow in the near future.

We are waiting for a new version, a new RFID for Azure Virtual Desktop AD 1, or Virtual Live Desktop AD 1. It really needs a whole new platform, because I think their platform has the best opportunity to offer features like HORIZONT.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

My advice is to just read and keep in touch. The technology is something that I have to read about every day, keep in touch with, study, take courses, and take certifications. So, currently, the best advice I can give to anyone is to keep updated.

Every time you check online you can find a new feature from Azure. The world of Azure is so big, so there is plenty of information that you can find, check, and test.

We primarily use the solution for backups and ASO.

The ASO is great.

We enjoy the disaster recovery aspect of the solution, which is very interesting, as we pay when it is on. When it's off we don't pay. 

There is no effort investment. We just pay what is being replicated, that's all.

There is the potential to scale.

The stability is good.

We've found the technical support to be responsive. 

In a month, there is a plan to increase pricing, which is something we are not looking forward to.

We've worked with the solution since it was first released. We've used it for a while.

The product is very stable compared to if you are going to employ it in-house. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. t's reliable. 

The scalability is good. If you need to expand it, you can.

We are in Mauritius. Mauritius is a very small country. We have about 1.2 million inhabitants. We are not that big of a country. I have about 25 clients using it.

We are an indirect reseller. We do have the CSP, the cloud service provider, in Mauritius, with whom we purchase. When we have an issue, we deal with them. They do have engineers that provide support as well.

That said, if there are any big troubles then we contact Microsoft directly. So far, our experience has been very positive. The callback is within 20 minutes. It's fine.

The initial setup is not simple. You need to be trained. It's not like it's just ready to be implemented - you need to be trained in what you are doing.

The deployment is quick and only takes about one day.

We do get an ROI from the disaster recovery aspect of the solution. 

The pricing is great, as we only pay for what we use. 

That said, the prices are about to increase in the next month.

We do have some clients in South Africa and some clients in Germany, however, we've noticed that the pricing for Germany is less expensive than South Africa. South Africa has a new data center, which is likely why the price is a bit high.

We implement the solution. We are silver resellers. 

We are using the latest version of the solution.

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

I'm the technical manager of our company and we are customers of Microsoft. 

We're able to provide our customers with what they want and very quickly.

This solution is quick, fluent and elastic. It's very easy to build a new service and get it into production. 

The solution is too expensive.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, it's one of the main advantages. 

Customer service is pretty good for what I need. 

The initial setup is not very complex. It's quite straightforward to get a new platform and be in production. We carried out the implementation ourselves. We have 350 employees and everybody uses Azure. We have four IT professionals dealing with maintenance.

We spend around $10,000 per month on licensing and that's just for Azure. In addition, there is a per user charge for using Office 365.

The policy of the company is to use Microsoft products. We took a look at Google and AWS, but very quickly decided to go with Azure. It's a well-known solution and the decision was taken by the finance department.

Stability and simplicity of use play an important role, so I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

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.

As the solution is cloud-based, we always use the latest solution. 

We make use of the solution in the cloud for specific internal applications.

Use of the solution could be easier. It is too complex.

The solution is not sufficiently informative and there is a need to wade through much information. 

Moreover, we find it lacking when it comes to active dashboards. This is problematic when looking to Teams, as it does not allow one to know what is transpiring in real time, such as when there are concurrent conferences. This information only becomes available the following day. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure Review for three years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Microsoft's technical support is good. There is no room for improvement. 

We looked at web user before going with the solution. 

As the solution is cloud-based there is no installation involved. 

The license is on a monthly basis.

There are approximately 100 users utilizing the solution in our organization.

I would definitely recommend it to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure as a seven out of ten. 

The solution is basically a platform as a service for web applications, virtual machines, Azure identity, et cetera.

My day-to-day is to migrate servers using Mover or some other app to access on-premises data centers. We then use Azure Migrate to move the servers in order to take advantage of the new functionalities and things like that.

The solution offers good monitoring features that allow us to configure items better in the customer environment. The monitoring is really awesome.

Occasionally, clients have specific requirements for their applications and we can move them onto Azure services or apps. 

Overall, it offers a better way to move the applications and monitor or configure the applications with higher availability. For example, there are load balancers, different types of layers that load balancers use, traffic managers, Front Door, and things of that nature that are available to us and the client via Azure.

Overall, I like how the solution works. It offers everything I need, for the most part.

The user interface is very nice and makes everything easy to use.

The power share modules have been improved, and the AC module was introduced - which has been great. There are ten or 15 more regions on the way as well.

The tools on offer are excellent. It has some really great environment assessment tools as well.

There are preview features we are waiting on. When I contact Microsoft support, there is no timeline given or clear information about when those preview features are going to be on GA, general availability. It would be ideal if they could finally give us at least an estimation of how much longer we have to wait.

Support could be improved. If you pay for a higher plan, it's okay, however, the lower plans don't offer as good of a service experience. It also seems as though each different tier doesn't talk to the other. they should be able to communicate and share details internally with each other so that they are learning from each other instead of staying siloed.

I've been using the solution for the last few years. I would estimate it's been about five years at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely been using the solution over the last 12 months.

In terms of stability, for me, it works. However, depends on the type of project that's happening. If you're going to have just a virtual machine running there then it can fail. That said, the platform offers a lot of options to improve the capability, so it depends on how much money a client wants to invest.

The scalability works just fine. I've had some issues before with Azure App Service, with an App Service environment allocation, however, Microsoft has improved that, making a bigger rack. Since then, I haven't seen issues with scalability. That was maybe a year ago.  

We currently have three clients on Microsoft Azure.

There is room for improvement with technical support. I work with premium support and therefore don't really face issues. We have good engineers. There are some issues when you get a new support person. They have a lot of rotation in their personnel. They train people for a couple of months. They're trying to help however, it's not the same as getting a seasoned professional. It really depends on the support line you buy. If you go for a lower tier, you're likely to get less experienced assistance.  

For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. It was not overly complex. I worked with a Microsoft support engineer. I had contact with the product group and know the technical advisors and technical matters, which made it very easy for me.

For example, in comparison. I tried to use Amazon Web Services by myself, and I got confused as I didn't have that level of support. With Azure, the interface is nice, and it's pretty straightforward. Anybody with a little bit of technical knowledge about working, virtual machines, or similar items can use it with little to no problem. The implementation is pretty good.

The time it takes to deploy the solution depends on the customer environment. If they have 25 servers versus five there will be radically different deployment times.

Typically, we use Microsoft strategies as a foundation assessment. We'll look at the customer environment and be in the background for a couple of weeks to pull some data so we can have a better understanding of the customer environment. After that, we create a plan to start migrating the servers. Each client is unique.

I worked alongside a Microsoft support engineer who assisted in the process.

You do need to pay for technical support and there are different tiers of support you can get. The higher the tier, it seems, the better the service you can expect.

I haven't used AWS or Google Cloud, therefore I don't really ever compare this solution to them. I don't say "this platform has that and I like how this works". For me, Azure just works and it's fine and I don't need to go in-depth and look at other options.

The company I am working at new does use AWS and we're planning to introduce new cloud technologies as well. 

I'm not a salesperson, however, I can say that we would move the client to whichever technology made sense to them after doing an evaluation of their requirements. That, of course, is handled by a different department.

We are a reseller and a Microsoft Gold partner. We are a CSP, a Cloud Solution Provider. We offer managed services to our customers. We are moving data centers to Azure, however, we are a managed service provider. We have access to the customer's environment in order to pull analytics data to help them with consulting services, and things like that.

My basic advice to those considering the solution is that planning is essential. Microsoft does a good job of advising their customers at the outset to ensure they get what they need, however, it's helpful to go in and understand deeply what it is your company needs overall. 

That said, Azure is a strong cloud and its technology is great. Microsoft offers good implementation with service legal agreements and good practices.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We wanted to deploy applications and have them interact with services on the back-end, so we deployed Azure for this. The performance has been quite good.

It was easy to deploy our applications on Azure. It provides more compatibility and scalability than the .NET application. This is why we chose to use Azure.

We are looking for the Azure to get involved in the case of other applications, like the Java application. Because it is predefined and has been set by Microsoft, who is providing better compatibility to the .NET application, so we are looking for the same from Azure for the Android app. Therefore, we are looking for better compatibility and scalability.

It is stable. I have not seen it have any downtime.

We have faced some challenges trying to deploy a new ESP application.

The technical support was good. I would give them an eight out of 10 rating.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The pricing is very competitive.

We evaluated AWS. 

If I were advising a colleague in my organization who is looking for a solution and is comparing AWS and Azure, I would prefer that they go for Azure, or any software using Microsoft technologies because we have had good experiences with them. If I were advising on Java, I wouldn't advise him to specifically use another tool rather he should do research and use my comparison history on IT Central Station.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

Most important criteria for selecting a vendor: The client will choose the license and buy it. We can try to convince them, but we can not compel them to use a specific vendor's license. Ultimately, the decision-maker is the client.