Microsoft Azure Reviews

I am currently working with Microsoft Azure, along with other products, but my focus is primarily on Microsoft. I mostly work with Microsoft Azure and the entire Power Platform, not only Power Apps, but also other products that are under this umbrella. As an architect, I design solutions on how they should be built, especially with AI integration, and I focus on how we can integrate Power Platform with Microsoft Azure technology.

In Microsoft Azure, we primarily use Microsoft Foundry in combination with AI Search and Blob storage to decrease the amount of work we need to do. The low-code approach in Copilot Studio can be complicated with not-so-accurate answers, but when it comes to Microsoft Azure, we have more metrics and greater flexibility in how to configure our solutions, evaluate the entire solution, and implement changes as needed.

In my business operations, I assess Microsoft Azure's integration with Microsoft products as being highly beneficial since we use either API connections or native connections. In the Power Platform, many products natively integrate with Microsoft Azure, especially Copilot Studio. We can use Foundry agents natively, even though it is still in preview, but it serves well for MVP and POC. With Azure AI Search, we also have connectors, which remove the need to create API or custom connectors. We truly appreciate this native integration because it allows us to differentiate and separate our backend from our frontend, enabling different teams to work simultaneously on these parts.

There is room for improvement in Microsoft Azure. We started using Foundry when it provided the Prompt Flow feature, but now it seems to be deprecated or not improving anymore. What we liked was the continuation of the low-code approach in Microsoft Azure, as it had a nice drag-and-drop interface with minimal Python involvement. Now, we observe that Microsoft is not following this concept anymore. I assume that Prompt Flow could be deprecated, but at Ignite, they introduced Flows, which appear to follow a similar low-code approach, so I intend to investigate more about Flows.

The improvement I see needed is to keep Microsoft Azure accessible for low-code developers to prevent a separation between low-code and pro-code developers. If low-code developers can utilize Microsoft Azure features, it will enhance projects significantly. I expect that Microsoft will heavily investigate and improve the new feature workflow, which I think could replace Prompt Flow because it allows for integrating agents and using various actions.

The ability to create multi-agent solutions with this workflow would be beneficial. If we can achieve deeper integration among different products while maintaining a low-code approach with the workflow, it will be an excellent addition.

I can confidently say that we appreciate how everything remains within the boundaries of the tenant.

I would rate their technical support a ten because we have various support channels available, and as an MVP, I benefit from a direct connection with the product team. For my projects, I receive a significant amount of support from Microsoft, and I am very satisfied with it.

Positive

I am very satisfied with the initial setup. With more than twenty years of experience with Microsoft technology, I can confidently say that we appreciate how everything remains within the boundaries of the tenant. We require some level of security in our projects, but we rely heavily on the capabilities that Microsoft provides. This has allowed us to find numerous possibilities for implementing different solutions for our clients using Microsoft technologies without the need to seek out third-party vendors.

Regarding pricing, it really depends on the product. However, I find the licensing strategy might be a bit over-complicated and not very clear for customers, which can lead to confusion. Especially for AI solutions we build with different tools, we have to be careful to avoid paying for tools multiple times. If the licensing guidance could be simpler and more straightforward, it would be a significant improvement.

I have not yet utilized Microsoft Azure's IoT features. I would rate this product a ten overall.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

Power BI has been my experience, and there is no question about that; it comes with an integrated platform now with Fabric coming in, and the level of convenience is extremely high as compared to any other tool, integrating with your data sources and with your current reporting tool.

I have also worked on MicroStrategy and Microsoft Azure, where I used to be a corporate trainer and a certified trainer for MicroStrategy, which was a long time back, but I have worked on pretty much their admin section, Microsoft Azure section, reporting tool, schema building, and the whole suite.

I have worked on DevOps and ADF, and I have looked into those areas; Data Bricks has been used as a data source in a couple of projects.

We have used AI, primarily the Copilot feature, to assist users in asking questions and creating their visualizations on the dashboards; it is not used extensively yet, but it has really helped users get quick answers without raising tickets.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for more than five years now in Power BI or in other tools.

AI, primarily the Copilot feature, has assisted users in creating visualizations on dashboards, reducing the need to raise tickets.

In the whole Microsoft Azure, I find DevOps to be very useful because Power BI by default does not come with any version controlling mechanism, but integrating that with DevOps allows you to convert the whole Power BI file into a code piece for effective version control, solving many version conflicts I have struggled with in my projects.

For the version control integration, we maintain branches in DevOps, managing our reports in their own branches and merging them into the main branch, which prevents losing changes and managing efforts because I have struggled with version control before.

Regarding the pricing licensing model in Power BI, many features have been pushed into Fabric; earlier features we enjoyed at Pro level are now bundled into Fabric, which pushes the prices higher and makes Pro capacity feel obsolete. Microsoft Azure is something we use as an additional suite that aids Power BI.

It is straightforward and not very complicated; it is not much different than Jira or other tools, and the added advantage is that these platforms are consolidated in Fabric, eliminating different licenses and small configuration roadblocks. Data security is very important for us due to the sensitive data we handle, as any leakage can cause devastation, so Microsoft Azure's compliance coverage is crucial for our organization's regulatory needs.

The pricing licensing model in Power BI has pushed many features into Fabric; earlier features we enjoyed at Pro level are now bundled into Fabric, which pushes the prices higher and makes Pro capacity feel obsolete.

To give a rating of ten out of ten, the speed of technical support needs to improve because the time cycle from raising a ticket to resolution can stretch up to a month or two, which is very long; otherwise, I do not have much negativity about the product quality.

I have been working on Power BI for nine years, but I have worked on MicroStrategy also for about three years approximately, so I have been dealing with Microsoft for even longer.

I would rate the technical support as seven or eight; while we eventually get the resolution we seek, the timelines are often long and require patience for quick answers.

Positive

I am dealing with the whole Microsoft suite. MicroStrategy is a different tool from a different company.

I was involved in the implementation of Microsoft Azure.

I have not utilized Microsoft Azure's IoT features. That we have not explored too much, so that is still kind of new to me. I cannot see any other areas for improvement right now; whatever we need is being satisfied with what we currently have. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

My experience primarily revolves around modernization, IT transformation, and infrastructure as a service in the cloud, along with managed services, cloud service provider strategies, designing cloud services, and monetization strategies.

So, I'm mainly focused on consulting for customers. However, I also use it personally. 

My customers integrate Microsoft Azure into their existing IT infrastructure. They adopt a hybrid approach, and they tend to move as much as possible to the cloud. It's a transition to fully cloud-based solutions, dealing with legacy systems through temporary hybrid solutions until everything can be migrated.

Projects often leverage Azure for data handling, using Microsoft's data platform, Power BI, and Azure Synapse Analytics. Innovations with Azure are increasingly driven by integrations with OpenAI and tools like ChatGPT, enabling rapid project initiation and delivering substantial results in artificial intelligence applications.

It's very exhaustive and very comprehensive. Regarding the security features, the security stack of Microsoft has made a lot of improvements in the last two years. We really appreciate the offerings, particularly what they have done with Microsoft Sentinel, a platform that helps manage what is happening within your organization, which is very good. 

An improvement could be a version that is more adapted for small companies. Microsoft Sentinel is great for large companies but less so for smaller ones. I also appreciate what they have done with Microsoft Purview. The cybersecurity stack of Microsoft is very good.

Microsoft Azure promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations. So, compared to the older platform I know, the advantage of Microsoft Azure is it's very coherent. You can't really build something totally stupid. 

With other platforms, it's possible to build something technically possible but practically very stupid. So, it's very coherent on the Microsoft platform, and it's also consistent with what Microsoft has done on-premise. 

If we have a customer with a strong Microsoft footprint, it's pretty obvious that we should move to Microsoft Azure. On the opposite side, if we have a customer that's super Linux-oriented, they have a lot of Linux services and stuff like that for those types of customers. It's easier, maybe, to move to AWS.

Another area of improvement is Microsoft Sentinel. It is great for large companies but less so for smaller ones. An improvement could be a version that is more adapted for small companies.

The only thing is regarding the management of multi-cloud environments. That's not really possible. 

So basically, it's wonderful if you manage Microsoft clearly and if you manage Microsoft Azure, but if you need to consume external services and have a global overview of all your consumption, it's not the case. 

Google, for instance, has tools that help you manage multiple environments, which makes sense because Google is really the cloud provider. So that's why they need to be compliant with the others. 

But for sure, Microsoft's approach is different, and it's wonderful when you're one hundred percent on Azure. But if you'd like to have something more of a multi-cloud strategy, that's a bit of a gap where they could improve.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years now. 

It is a very stable solution. I would rate the stability a ten, but I never give it ten, so I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten because no one is perfect. Azure's scalability features are fundamental. They allow our applications to grow with our customers. 

For instance, when a customer enters new markets, it's easy to deploy an environment in a new data center or provide a CDN for closer distribution. We encourage customers to adopt modern applications based on microservices, which are natively scalable and elastic, allowing the IT infrastructure to grow with their market demands and expectations.

In Switzerland, where I'm based, the majority of people use Azure. AWS entered the market a bit later. The problem is they're working more with Microsoft products like Microsoft 365 than with Azure as an infrastructure platform, which is still pretty new here. We're at an early stage in Switzerland for full cloud adoption.

Our customers are medium enterprises mostly because they are the most prominent customers we see in my business. Large customers already use Azure extensively, like the top 50 big companies, including Zalando, Nestle, Kraya, and Philip Morris for PMI. They're using Azure a lot, but not always AWS. If you're very big, you'll have at least two cloud providers. 

The medium market is more Microsoft-oriented than AWS. Small companies, however, don't know much about the cloud or are not interested in it; they are interested in solutions that may be hosted in the cloud, but that's not their focus.

The customer service and support are very good. When we have an issue in an Azure environment, it's usually our fault, not Microsoft's. Maybe it is an issue with the design we made.

However, when we raise a ticket, we quickly get feedback or someone assigned to help us identify the problem, which, 90% of the time, was on our end. I'm very happy with the support they provide.

Positive

I've worked with many solutions as I'm involved in cloud strategy, focusing on cloud technology.

I have substantial knowledge of the AWS platform and Microsoft Azure, particularly in infrastructure as a service, management, cloud platforms, FinOps, containers, and microservices. 

I have a good overview of the offerings from AWS, Microsoft, and Google, and they're very close. They observe each other and are very similar. For me, Microsoft Azure is a very good platform with a lot of utility. 

AWS is probably the most exhaustive platform, allowing for a wide range of technologies. However, this means you can create monster systems that don't make sense, though it might be useful for a very niche market. 

Google tries to think out of the box, offering alternatives that can comply with other platforms, and having a more data-driven approach. But AWS and Microsoft are very close.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a five out of ten, with ten being easy to set up. 

It's not difficult because you are well-guided, but it requires an understanding of the philosophy and knowledge. It's definitely easier than AWS, which is more complex and designed by engineers for engineers. Managing AWS is definitely a bit more complex than Azure.

The time it takes to deploy Microsoft Azure varies. You can create an environment in five minutes, but setting up a whole organization can take longer. It depends on what you mean by "deploy." 

In Azure, the environment size matters; whether you have one server or three thousand, it's not the same thing, and it also includes factors like replication. Now, everything is scripted, so the deployment time also depends on your maturity and experience. It's faster to deploy a cloud environment than a physical one.

First, we identify what needs to be achieved and make the architecture. Then we deploy in a test environment, perform integration and acceptance tests, move to a pre-production environment for real-life assessment with limited users, and based on success, move to production. 

There's a sandbox or dev environment, a test environment for testing, a pre-prod for limited user testing, and then production for a dedicated market or group if successful.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

It's not about licensing but subscription. For an SME, spending roughly 5,000 euros per month becomes interesting, indicating a significant infrastructure setup in the cloud. 

For those just starting their cloud journey or using only Office 365 and similar services, it's much cheaper, about 1,000 to 2,000 euros per month.

Customers pay Microsoft to get the environment up and running, but they may also need to pay external providers or suppliers for managed services. This is where we see an opportunity to provide an integrated offer that includes both the Microsoft suite and management on top. 

It's crucial, especially for companies that may not know how to fully leverage the product, to have this guidance and support. 

This is where Microsoft partners come in, adding value on top of Microsoft's offerings. 

For an SME, depending on their IT infrastructure, having managed services is important, as they may not have a large IT department. The cost of managing the environment might be similar to the expense for Microsoft services, potentially around 5,000 euros a month to manage the environment.

I would advise that migrating to the cloud is an amazing opportunity. However, it's crucial to understand the drivers of the cloud, what changes it brings, and to reconsider the organization and skills within the organization. 

If you expect to move to the cloud without changing the structure, processes, personnel, or without providing training, it won't work. You might end up disappointed, wanting a direct copy of what you had in a cloud environment in the past, which could be more expensive.

Moving to Azure requires training your IT teams, but also providing basic cloud training for everyone, including the CFO, CIO, and even the CEO. Everyone needs to understand the concept of the cloud and what can be achieved with it.

Creating a cloud center of excellence is also critical to reshaping the company with cloud capabilities. This can lead to significant changes and transformation, increasing elasticity, reactivity, and potentially huge savings.

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

Hybrid Cloud

We have various dashboards built for different subject areas using Microsoft Power BI. These are built to meet specific user requirements for dashboards, reporting, and analytics, including predictive analytics. The data is populated in the cloud using Microsoft integration services and Data Factory.

Microsoft Azure provides a valuable Data Factory, particularly for analytics. The product is powerful for integration and data loading. Power BI, another feature of Azure, is extremely elegant and has robust features that support forecasting using R and Python. Azure's ecosystem promotes integration across various products, making it a comprehensive solution for data and analytics.

Many features are specific to Azure cloud, creating a vendor lock-in. Moving solutions back on-premises may not be possible. Some features available on Azure cloud are not present on-premises, which can limit hybrid deployments. Recent outages and security issues are also a concern, causing a decrease in confidence, especially when partnering with third-party companies.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for less than three years.

I find the setup to be very simple and easy to use.

Microsoft Azure is quite stable, but recent outages and security issues have slightly decreased my confidence. I have not personally faced any major issues, but the security part needs more focus.

Scalability with Microsoft Azure is amazing, which is a primary reason for using cloud solutions.

The setup is very simple and user-friendly.

Pricing varies on a case-to-case basis. Microsoft solutions might be cheaper than some services like AWS, but some solutions may be more expensive depending on the services compared.

I evaluated Cloudera as well. While Microsoft Azure offers easier and faster rollout of solutions, Cloudera provides a flexible hybrid environment with no vendor lock-ins, which can be an advantage.

I rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten overall. It is a very well-done and elegant platform, but the security issues slightly lower my rating.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We use the product to move data from sources to warehouses in on-premise environments. It also helps us move the data to the cloud or data lake.

The product's initial setup process and stability need improvement. 

We have been using Microsoft Azure for the last two years.

In terms of the product stability, we have encountered occasional issues. Sometimes, we encounter delays or wait times, especially when utilizing newly introduced services still in the preview phase. These services may initially experience glitches or bugs as they undergo testing and refinement. However, many of these issues are addressed over time, and the stability improves as the products mature. Azure continues to evolve rapidly, with new features being introduced frequently, which may contribute to occasional instability.

The platform's salability feature has supported our growth demands, allowing us to manage our resources and control costs efficiently. While it offers ease of escalation for additional resources when needed, we must exercise caution to ensure it aligns with our budgetary considerations. With a workforce of around 400 individuals spread across the globe, serving UN entities and other international organizations, our IT services are critical for their operations.

We have had an excellent experience with customer service and support from Microsoft. A dedicated team works, and we have regular monthly meetings with them.

Positive

Azure is more user-friendly and easier to use than Amazon Web Services (AWS). AWS, on the other hand, is geared more towards IT professionals and smart coding. At the same time, Azure provides a simpler and more understandable interface for building and learning. AWS may seem more complex but offers a wider range of services and possibilities. Both platforms are similar in some respects, and users may find equivalent services with different names.

The initial setup is complicated, particularly when implementing CI/CD and automatic deployment processes. It requires a strong background in coding and administration, especially when working with containers. Maintenance is simple and falls within the realm of administration.

Microsoft provides more affordable pricing than Amazon. We have a good discount for our entities. It is not an expensive product and is adaptable to various requirements. It offers a free tier for small-scale usage and the ability to scale up as needed when requirements grow.

The features enabling workflow efficiency include working with small databases locally and adapting the license pricing depending on the need. If we require more space, we can easily scale it up, and the price adjusts accordingly, making management simple. Azure allows access from anywhere worldwide to develop and manage data warehouses, facilitating remote work, especially during events like COVID-19. Previously, accessing systems remotely was more cumbersome when most data was on-premises. It provides discounted access and enables the creation of secure systems with appropriate networking for enhanced security control.

The platform's security and compliance offerings align well with our organization's needs. It is fully compliant, although it also depends on our customers' specific requirements, which may require more stringent regulations. Internally, we prioritize compliance, ensuring that we meet the necessary standards. Additionally, we appreciate its focus on performance improvements, as faster execution of services enhances our workflow efficiency. We have observed improvements in features like service flow definition within Azure Data Factory, further enhancing our capabilities. However, we encounter compatibility challenges, particularly when transitioning between different versions of Azure services, such as storage accounts from generation one to generation two, which may require manual review and adjustments.

It is seamlessly integrated with our existing IT ecosystem, allowing us to operate in a multi-cloud environment. We can easily access and integrate data sources from other platforms, such as AWS, and incorporate them into our Azure environment. For instance, we utilize Power BI within Azure to analyze unstructured data from AWS. While connectors facilitate integration, we also leverage APIs for more customized connections when specific connectors are not available. I rate Azure's integration capabilities as eight out of ten, acknowledging areas for further improvement and development.

Overall, I rate it an eight out of ten.

Microsoft Azure is a very dynamic cloud service that allows you to migrate your workload, applications, and data. We can use cloud services to run those environments or transform those applications into better services with high availability and resilience. It has multiple zones and multiple data centers.

When running any service on the cloud, the best advantage is that you can scale up and scale down. You can scale up your environment if there's a high-selling season for your application and services. Once that season is over, you can downscale and run operations.

The customer support can become pricey at times if you don't have proper plans.

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

Microsoft Azure is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability ten out of ten.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is great. The only thing is that the support can become pricey at times if you don't have proper plans. The cloud services are available for any problems you get into. The support is good, and now it's very stable.

Complexity-wise, the solution's initial setup is very medium. A lot of documentation, videos, training, and tutorials are available. Anybody who knows about cloud computing can learn, train themselves, and set up the solution. You need to keep enhancing your setup, configurations, and security.

You get a better return investment with Microsoft Azure for three to five years. Customers would incur hardware and infrastructure costs on their data center because they have to keep upgrading their hardware every three to five years. You need someone to maintain your redundancy, which costs too much.

That's why people go with the cloud, where you don't have to worry about anything. Microsoft data centers are developed in such a way that there is high availability and redundancy.

You just need to worry about your application and the access and security around it. You don't have to worry about all the underlying hardware, which is very cost-effective. If you choose the right SKUs for the costing part, you'll get your return on investment in three years.

All cloud services are available on a monthly licensing basis. Microsoft Azure has the concept of reserve instances. If you know that you would like to run your application for one year or three years, then you should go with the reserve instances. The monthly costs become very reasonable because of the discounts you get on longer reserved instances.

Microsoft is actively enhancing the solution. When it was first launched, the tool was a little more on the classic version, but then Microsoft improved and enhanced those services. Microsoft is currently working with a plethora of applications and services. A lot of things have already been done. Microsoft Azure is a very stable and in-demand cloud.

Most organizations are using Microsoft Azure because Microsoft is running their identity piece. If the identity is merged or synced with the cloud identity, everything develops and works around that. Several users and companies have grown quickly after using Microsoft Azure. In any organization, around 80% to 90% of users are using the cloud service.

Everyone should start using Microsoft Azure and try to get Microsoft certifications. Microsoft certifications have a lot of practical labs and scenario-based questions that prepare you for the actual deployment. So, Microsoft certifications are a must.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

Microsoft Azure provides many critical features, such as business continuity and disaster recovery, which come embedded out of the box. From my point of view, managing the whole infrastructure, these features have been very beneficial. The support is also amazing, with someone allocated to assist within a few minutes.

At the moment, we've found Azure Container Apps to be most beneficial for scalability. Previously, our resources were hosted on dedicated servers, which were tricky to scale automatically. With Azure Container Apps, which work like Kubernetes with additional features, scalability is built-in. This allows us to scale to almost zero when not in use, saving costs. Additionally, consumption-based features ensure we only pay when there's demand, and it auto-scales accordingly.

However, we've had issues with Databricks auto-scaling, where it sometimes spun up more clusters than needed, incurring extra costs. Azure has resolved these issues based on our feedback. As we often adopt new technologies early, we encounter some immaturity in features, but overall, for our application needs, we're quite satisfied. I haven't used AWS or other cloud providers, so I can't compare costs.

Support is very responsive, especially for production issues. Within a few minutes, I get a phone call, and within half an hour, they gather the experts based on the resource type to address the issue.

Positive

Our budget for the Microsoft Azure infrastructure is over a million a year.

I am very satisfied with Microsoft Azure. Their resources, such as Databricks, can be expensive, but Microsoft is working on addressing that with discounts. I am happy because I use many of Azure's features, from development tools (Azure DevOps) to infrastructure.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure to others. Our developers are familiar with the Microsoft stack, which makes Azure a natural fit for us. Additionally, Microsoft offers substantial discounts for partners like us. Azure supports many open-source tools and integrates well with Azure DevOps extensions.

Recently, we've implemented Advanced Security through Microsoft Defender, which scans for vulnerabilities and integrates with our existing stack. This addition has been crucial in addressing previous gaps in security, particularly in identifying and resolving vulnerabilities early in the development process. 

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

We host all of our production workloads in Azure, including all environments like UAT, development, and production. 

All our mission-critical workloads run in Azure, and that includes Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), Azure API Management (APIM), Application Gateway, Load Balancer, and a full suite of security products, including Azure Sentinel, virtual machines, Azure Monitor, and ExpressRoute for private network connectivity.

Additionally, we've recently begun using Azure Synapse for data warehousing, and our SaaS solutions include Office 365 and Dynamics 365.

We use so many services, and it's constantly evolving, so there are many features I like. 

For example, Azure DevOps is good for deployment.

Additionally, different Azure products integrate well to create unified security solutions.

I really like the security features in Azure. Defender integrates everything, so I can handle all security posture management tasks within a unified solution. It outperforms SIEM, CIEM, and even Security Access Broker solutions. It's a complete package with unified support within Azure.

For compliance, we follow specific industry standards and government regulations. Azure provides a strong baseline, making compliance maintenance easier.

We use most Azure services. However, there are limitations with a few services, like the Standard Load Balancer. It lacks features like utilization visibility compared to traditional load balancers.

Some older services need better log visibility. Additionally, limitations can be restrictive. For example, the Standard Load Balancer currently lacks the ability to proactively monitor its own health.

Additionally, through the Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) model, Microsoft support isn't ideal. We often need to escalate to outsourced technical support, who rely on documentation. I often need to remind them that we follow the documentation and educate them on the issue. I rarely reach the actual Microsoft back-end engineers. Despite this, the service uptime and monitoring are good.

I have been working with it for seven years. I have been using it since 2017. 

It's stable. However, we had a major incident in Singapore last year, even though we don't have any resources in Australia (where another major incident occurred). 

Aside from that, we consider it reliable. One issue is that Microsoft sometimes upgrades released instances without notifying us (the last notification was in August). This happened with an automated upgrade I'm still working on resolving with support.

It's very scalable. We can scale up to 80-85% without issues. The only limitation is for scaling down below 10-15% due to CSP quotas and limitations, but that only affects a small portion (less than 10%).

We always forecast scalability needs, such as sizes, so it wasn't a bottleneck for deployments or production issues. Instead, it has only enhanced our environment.

Honestly, and without disrespect to Microsoft, I'd rate it a two out of ten.

It bothers me. I don't understand why we spend so much time and money on Azure when Microsoft relies on third-party companies for support in the CSP model. I don't know how the support model works within Microsoft, but giving it to poor-performing third-party companies is not ideal. 

Negative

My company primarily works on Azure now. However, in my previous organization, I used Oracle and AWS Cloud.

Navigation and some features are better in AWS. But the documentation can be complex compared to Azure. 

For example, the AWS documentation for creating a virtual machine end-to-end is very clear, even for someone unfamiliar with the cloud. 

Azure documentation, while good, can be overwhelming, requiring more experience to understand.

The initial deployment is easy now, after five years of using it. It might have been a nightmare a few years ago, but it's very good now.

We primarily deploy using PaaS (Platform as a Service) solutions. We avoid managing virtual machines whenever possible. Approximately 90% of our mission-critical application workloads are microservices run in Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). We use virtual machines for the remaining 10%. We also use Azure SQL Database. We deploy resources using Azure DevOps pipelines.

Azure's documentation assists with our deployments. I like the recommendation feature, although we sometimes need to create exceptions, as is typical with any baseline. But overall, it's helpful. 

Not just the recommendations, but the entire added value is a great feature and provides valuable insights. The architectural framework pillars are also very useful to use as a whole, not just the individual recommendations.

I wasn't on the deployment team, but I support most architecture decisions. We use Azure DevOps pipelines to deploy to AKS clusters in production. 

We use YAML pipelines for infrastructure as code (IaC) deployments and Azure DevOps for application deployments. 

However, we face some integration challenges, but that's okay. It's not unique to Azure; every other tool has its own challenges.

For PaaS (Platform as a service) offerings, we have no issues with maintenance. However, with IaaS (Infrastructure as a service) services like Azure SQL, choosing maintenance slots is limited. 

For example, with business-critical Azure SQL instances, there are only three available maintenance slots to choose from. This makes it difficult even though the downtime is less than a minute. We cannot create custom maintenance windows for Azure SQL instances. 

We'd like Microsoft to offer more maintenance slots because the current options, like 10 PM to 6 AM Monday to Thursday, are not suitable for mission-critical workloads. It's not always feasible to ask stakeholders for downtime outside those windows. So, I would definitely recommend requesting more maintenance time slots as feedback.

 

It's a mixed bag. Some services are okay, while others are expensive. Different features within the same service, like Defender, have separate charges. This, combined with the skill shortage in FinOps strategy and management, makes it difficult to control costs. 

Cloud-native development makes it hard to predict future load capacity, so some services need the flexibility to scale up later, while others require full configuration during initial deployment.

Overall, I would rate the pricing on a seven out of ten, with ten being the most expensive.

I would recommend Azure based on specific business needs. However, I would recommend using this solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because of the customer support issues. 

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure