Microsoft Azure Reviews

The solution has high stability.

We have reported some bugs we encountered, and it would be good if those bugs were resolved more quickly.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for more than one year.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Currently, we are happy with how the solution scales. Around 60 users use the solution in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup was quite easy, and you can get support to help you with the installation.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.

We use management tools for APIs. A few people were involved in the solution’s deployment and maintenance. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for PaaS, web services, databases, and AD. 

The tool's most valuable features are SQL servers and Managed Instance databases. 

Microsoft Azure needs to be simplified to make it better understood for users. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate Microsoft Azure's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has ten users. 

I haven't contacted the tool's technical support. My Microsoft partner takes care of it. 

I rate Microsoft Azure's deployment a seven out of ten. It takes around half an hour to complete. You need two resources to handle the deployment. I am involved in its maintenance. 

A Microsoft partner helped us with the deployment. 

I rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. 

Our workflow has been good since using Azure Data Factory. There are previews of new features available, which I am happy about. I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We were using Microsoft Azure for file storage and file backup. So, it was one of our backup resources. Internally, NAS is there in our company. So, we go from NAS to Veeam and Veeam to Azure.

Feature-wise, I like its stability. Also, it is easy to access the solution and its options. Also, the backup solutions can take anything, so we can easily find out any option.

The security feature in the solution is an area that needs to be improved.

I have experience with Microsoft Azure until six months ago. Also, I was using the solution's latest version.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product. There are more than 100 users using the solution. I am just involved in the maintenance of the servers and infrastructures.

We need to purchase Microsoft Azure for our clients, including cloud backup and any Azure solutions. So, So that time, we need to contact technical support. I expect more technical support from Azure.

The solution's initial setup is straightforward. When you need to create multiple tasks, the solution can get complex. I am not involved in the deployment process.

I can recommend it to other people who want to start using it. So, our company provides a lot of solutions to our clients, including backup solutions like NAS storage, cloud storage, and servers. Parallely, we provide support to users.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

I only use Microsoft Azure for queries, creating databases, and applying rules. The data lakes are very simple to connect. 

Microsoft Azure is a very fast and high-performance solution. It is the best product today.

I have found Microsoft Azure has many components to use and it's very difficult to understand every component.

I have used Microsoft Azure within the past 12 months.

I have not had a problem with the stability. It is reliable.

I have used Amazon AWS, Oracle SQL, and NoSQL databases.

The configuration of Microsoft Azure can be difficult because of the mapping.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

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.

Microsoft Azure is essentially an IaaS solution, we use the DMs and everything in that.

Microsoft Azure is primarily an Infrastructure as a Service product.

We are satisfied with this solution.

We have not had any issues with the performance, or the stability.

It's more user-friendly than AWS.

I have only been using it for a month, so I'm still learning about the various options that are available. They have a lot of options, but I won't be able to comment unless I use it or explore it properly. Everything is fine, but I'm still learning.

The license price could be lower. If there is anything else, I will not know unless I explore.

I have just started working with Microsoft Azure. I have been working with it for one month. I got my trial subscription and started working with it.

Microsoft Azure is a stable solution.

Microsoft Azure is a scalable product.

I use it for my own personal use.

I contacted technical support a while ago. They were also helpful. I only had one question about the file quarantine and file locking options, and they were very helpful. They have a support team that responds fairly well.

For remote work, we have been using Microsoft Teams.

We are also using McAfee Proxy, as well as Box.

We are also using Amazon AWS. 

I've only recently begun working with AWS. I started but then stopped because I didn't like the user interface. 

AWS is used and preferred by a large number of customers, but I am more comfortable working on Azure rather than AWS. This is a personal preference.

The initial configuration is straightforward. We only need an email ID and we can sign up in a matter of minutes.

We can complete the installation on our own.

Pricing is determined by how much you can use and how much you want to use it.

It's not on a per-user basis; it's on a per subscription basis. It is dependent on how much you use. It has a metering system. If you use a service, you will have to pay for it. You do not have to pay if you do not use any of the services. That's how it works.

The licensing fees could be cheaper.

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

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten 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. 

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the limitless possibilities of the infrastructure. 

The documentation is out of date. It needs to be improved and modernized. 

Technical support needs improvement. 

I would like to see more flexibility surrounding what framework you can use for machine learning model creation.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

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

The solution scales well. A company can expand it as necessary.

We have around 100 consultants using the solution. 

They do not seem to have enough technical support staff. Sometimes you have to contact them using email. You get the answer maybe three weeks after that email. It's available, however, it's not enough, and it's not very fast.

In terms of the initial implementation, how difficult or easy it is depends on the services. The most common deployments are pretty clear and it's pretty simple, however, in some cases, it's very difficult.

The deployments can be fast. For the simplest ones, five minutes is enough. However, sometimes when you are trying to use a specific service, for example, the cloud solution, it could take days or weeks just to get it available.

We have had a partner support us with the implementation. 

We pay a licensing fee on a yearly basis. I don't have details in terms of the exact costs. Sometimes there are extra costs here and there. 

We're a partner.

Inside the cloud, I have experience using different kinds of products like databases products virtual machines, etc.

I'd advise new users to prepare for certification. The most basic one is fine. Companies should preview the solution before they start any project.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.