Microsoft Azure Reviews

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.

Features such as Azure object storage, IaaS, Azure System Center, Azure SQL Database are valuable to me.

It provides:

• Scalable workload with elastic cloud capabilities

• Hybrid IT management of the on-premise and cloud workloads

• Disaster recovery

Azure is growing its open-source offerings and I see this as a continuous area of improvement.

I have used this solution for six years.

Early on, there were issues with the workload interruptions. Over the past 12 months, it has been a stable cloud service.

There were no issues with its scalability.

Technical support is one of Azure’s strengths, I would rate it above average to excellent.

I previously used Savvis and Verizon’s IaaS Enterprise Cloud solutions.

The initial setup was moderately complex. The use of PowerShell greatly increases the ability to fine-tune workloads, i.e., after the initial setup was completed.

If you have the existing on-premise licenses, make sure to ask for their special licensing promotions so as to allow consolidation of licenses and subscriptions, in order to maximize the current investment and control TCO.

We looked at other solutions such as AWS, Google's Cloud Platform and Terremark/Verizon.

Leverage their cloud credit program so as to allow your team to become acquainted with Azure, before turning on their cloud billing services.

I mainly use Azure for data analytics and implementation.

The best feature is it's easy to integrate with other Microsoft solutions.

Compared with other cloud solution providers, Microsoft is not good at local support.

I've been working with Azure for almost five years.

Azure's stability is ok, but there are issues sometimes. I'd rate its stability as seven or eight out of ten.

Azure is scalable.

Microsoft isn't good at local support.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Azure is cheaper than solutions from other cloud vendors like AWS or Google.

I prefer Azure to AWS or Google because it's cheaper and its ecosystem is better integrated. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is mostly for deploying services where we do not have the local infrastructure like hardware, or where it's not necessary for us to have the knowledge about how to set up a certain service. We just want to use it without concerns regarding running the service, backup, availability, etc. That's the reason we pay Microsoft the money for its Azure services, so we can just go ahead and use the product. Some of the services they've rendered have become business critical for the company, so we're using the solution on a daily basis. 

I like the reliability of the solution and the ease of provisional services which can be a click and go. I also like the broad diversity of services that are being offered.

I find that in many cases it's more expensive than AWS, and for no good reason. The pricing itself is also quite difficult to comprehend, it's not easy to know the total cost and not worth checking the calculator because the outcome is going to be totally different anyhow. I also find it difficult that they are specific to x86 and x64 machines, I haven't found any ARM-based virtual machine images that I could run in my IP test lab, which would be a great boost for productivity because I could run the internal pipeline in the cloud and would not have to divert to locally installed devices. 

If they want to be serious with IT devices then they should find a way of deploying ARM-based devices to Azure, to get more freedom of choice with virtual machines and services. It would be hardware virtual machine image offerings to other platforms, not only PC-based or x86-based. It would make my life much easier. 

I've been using this solution for four and a half years. 

There are some glitches but it's a pretty solid solution. 

It's a scalable solution. 

Overall, I'm quite satisfied with the technical support. There were different expectations about what I had understood from the description of the support offered and what the architects of Microsoft meant to deploy. Some of the documentation for Azure is sketchy enough to leave room for questions and that had to be sorted out with support, which is not a fault that the support guys should have to concern themselves with. If the documentation is not clear and the cloud device goes, then there's clearly room for improvement.

The start was far easier than we expected it to be, but the complexity caught up with us half a year later also. It got more complex as we went along. We carried out the deployment ourselves. I'm a very experienced administrator, I know a lot about concepts of data centers. I know how they work, I know how to set them up. This is just another data center, it's just that it's not mine.

We found it difficult to train our regular Windows admins to dive into Azure things, so it's important to get the right people or the project is doomed. There are too many people who don't really want to get to grips with the cloud. I would also suggest not starting from a fully regulated basis. We have our deployment fully integrated with Azure Active Directory, which can be quite a hindrance when it comes to just playing around with things. It's essential to give people developer accounts where they can just play around, break things, work through them, like a little lab. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

Its main use case is data center migration. We are doing data center migration to Microsoft Azure.

Azure is a set of different services, and the version depends on the service that you choose, but normally, we work with the latest version.

There are a lot of things that we like about it. It is very easy to provision and configure. It is flexible and scalable.

We have faced some issues on the pricing side, but it has improved lately. We are trying to adjust to the new pricing methods that they are using now. It should be better from now on.

In terms of features, it is constantly improving. We receive improvements from the site daily.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have a team of 15 engineers who are continually working with our customers to provide support for the solution.

Their support is good.

Its setup is easy.

I would advise others to start moving everything to the cloud because it is cheaper, flexible, and scalable.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for our infrastructure. It's specific to server regulation and desktop regulation.

We used it for our customers in the pandemic. In terms of expansion on-premise, they were not able to do so due to the chip shortage. Therefore, we are moving everything to cloud and we are capacity-building - a temporary requirement. We are shifting them to the cloud.

As a partner, I like that they have a good benefit on margin.

The stability has been excellent. Multi-regions can leverage their capabilities easily.

The product is scalable.

We find the initial setup to be very simple. 

There are worldwide issues on Microsoft Azure, however, it is happening to Google also and as well as AWS. The problems we have are nothing new.

Technical support needs to be better.

I've been dealing with the solution for three years now.

The stability of the product has been great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product is scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it can do so.

We have 30 customers on the solution right now.

Technical support isn't so good. We'd like them to be more helpful and responsive. We'd like them to be faster.

The communication and those aspects are pretty good, however, the resolution could be faster and better.

As a cloud-based solution, the initial setup is very simple, very straightforward. 

We were able to deploy the solution in one day for a few clients. 

We have 20 team members that are technical (Azure system admins) and can handle the deployment and maintenance. We offer 24/7 coverage.

We offer this solution to our clients and can implement it for them.

The licensing is based on usage. Typically, it's a monthly fee that is paid to Microsoft.

We are a Microsoft Gold partner where we provide that, also we are users.

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

Customers who are on more Office 360 should leverage Azure. From a compliance perspective, these things are much more user-friendly compared to other clouds. Otherwise, there are a lot of compliance issues if we go with the other clouds where the mobility license is required. On Azure, for Microsoft users, those things are straightforward.

We are using Microsoft Azure for deploying our Windows. Additionally, Microsoft Azure for some analytic functions where we can have all our sales data and budgeting can be done.

There are many bugs in the solutions and we already have a ticket to Microsoft. Their content team is working on that.

We don't have the active-active options for Microsoft SQL Server. This is something they can work on.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for one and a half years.

The solution is scalable.

Microsoft Azure is scalable.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases are for GPU-centric computing and deploying web services infrastructure solutions. 

In terms of managing and configuring infrastructures, Azure is fairly good. 

Azure could be improved with better security. The world is changing and their security could be better. Compared to five years ago, many of these cloud systems are a lot better, especially since you can set up a private cloud and configure your services to make it more secure. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure for more than two years. 

This solution is stable. 

I used Azure in a research-related context to see what features were possible, not a scalability context, so my impressions are limited. 

If you require a good amount of support, you may have an easier time with AWS. 

Installation may not be easy for novices, but for experienced folks, it's fairly straightforward. You can do it yourself. 

I implemented this solution myself. 

Licensing is available for Azure. We mainly use Azure in a research context and to showcase what's possible, not from a scalability context, so our usage is limited from that standpoint. 

I have also worked with Amazon AWS. In general, AWS is fairly good too. I also know that many people also look at Google Cloud, which offers similar features and services. 

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten. There are some quirks, but in terms of managing and configuring infrastructures, it's fairly good. I recommend Azure because it's a top-class cloud solution provider, so there aren't many issues.