Microsoft Azure Reviews

I'm currently trying to build a new product for my company using Microsoft Azure. Prior to that, I was using Microsoft Azure on the cloud to deploy microservices using specific Azure services to host the microservices. But the most common Azure services that we're using is the App Service and relational databases. In terms of the application, the first one was just the Microsoft Azure application and the second one was an integration with Elastic Stack. I'm a software architect.

The user interface offers a good experience, it's better than Azure itself. The portal is great. Microsoft Azure has very good documentation for any kind of technical person.

Sometimes the Azure Calculator doesn't have a good way to do a higher estimate, because for any organization there are sometimes issues with the application sites, but I know that the logs are not the real time and there are issues with login synchronization. It cam sometimes take more than five minutes for that information to reach the Azure application side. I'd like to see integration with other lifecycle managing rules because with Azure DevOps, it's straightforward, but the system is painful sometimes. 

I've been using this solution for nearly five years, the last 12 months in this new company. 

In general, stability is good, but in the past month I had some issues with the connection to Azure resources, not just Microsoft Azure, but with Azure in general. Microsoft has an issue with its authentication system which has proved painful, because my applications were up and running, but I can't log in to make changes or see metrics. It's a lot better now, we've had the application down three or four times but it hasn't been critical. 

Scalability is good, I haven't had any issues with their configuration. I think we have around 600 concurrent users. 

I haven't used Azure support. They have good documentation, although I sometimes think that the examples on GitHub aren't updated. On the whole, documentation is good. 

We previously used AWS but we knew there was already a lot of experience with Microsoft Azure and their technologies and we wanted to use all the features for each service. Given that this is with government and the integration is with Microsoft Azure, we can use all the features and benefits of each service. Another issue is that they were using AWS with infrastructure as a service, but they redesigned this application to use software as a service and platform as a service. We dropped the use of infrastructure as a service and using the platform as a service, and it was estimated that it would cost less than with AWS.

I think the initial setup is straightforward. I have around 20 microservices, so deployment took probably two weeks. It took longer than a previous implementation which took several hours.

We did a quick check with cloud computing, but we didn't find anything really efficient outside of the Google Kubernetes Engine that was better than the Azure Kubernetes Service or the Kubernetes service in AWS. But it was just a quick check and it was documented.

I can sometimes see that Microsoft has poor training, but to be honest the whole training thing isn't good at a technical level. They are designed to be the entrance point and show the way you can create a web portal and database. But if they could offer an in-depth technical solution of Azure services that would be good. It's possible that Google has something about it and they can offer better learning than Microsoft sometimes does. Reading through their documentation can take some time. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

It is great for computer resource management at reduced cost. Also in a large environment, it gives you a lot of flexibility to provide different services, like disaster recovery and business continuity.

In terms of computer resource management and reduced cost, it is very, very effective. In large environments, it gives you a lot of flexibility to provide different services, like disaster recovery and business continuity with simple and great options because you don't have to spend a lot of time for maintenance, upgrades, and security. Also, Microsoft Azure provides a lot of services that can be managed by Microsoft like NetApp and SQL Server on a database.

Microsoft Azure has services such as ACS, Azure Container Service. This is very useful for improvements in running applications in a scalable environment. You will not need to spend time building the cluster on-premises, and you can improve your clusters with a lot of administration options.

I think Azure Active Directory and also the backup solutions provided in Azure need to be improved by Microsoft. The backup solution is not a very enterprise solution, and it is very simple. I think in comparison with other backup solutions like Nakivo and Veeam Backup, it can be improved to have a lot of options.

Along with this, one of the lack of options in Azure is managing antiviruses in virtual machines in the Azure environment. For example, if we have a lot of virtual machines on-premises and have to migrate them in Azure, there is no handy tool for the central management of antivirus software in all virtual machines in Azure.

On-premises, we have a lot of options like Kaspersky, Norton, and a lot of others, but in the Azure environment, you are limited to Windows ATP.

Windows ATP solutions are limited and can be improved by Microsoft, specifically the central management of the GUI for configuring agents on virtual machines.

I think Microsoft Azure should provide more innovation and new services to get better performance in the market.

The documentation for how to connect to CLI could also be improved.

I've been using Microsoft Azure for around three years.

It is very scalable and can be distributed to different regions.

I'm not involved in using technical support because I directly work with an Azure architect on my team who is responsible for providing support and leading the team as well as contacting the Microsoft support team. In general, however, I think, one of the best advantages of Microsoft services is the support team made up of technical engineers who help solve problems.

As for the initial setup, the GUI in Microsoft is very simple and very handy, but in Azure Container Service, it is not very handy and is very complex. You would need to go forward with CLI.

I would rate Microsoft Azure at eight on a scale from one to ten. 

We use it for virtual machines.

It is quick and easy to deploy. It is flexible, and we can deploy a resource anytime. 

We like and prefer the pay-as-you-go model.

Its pricing should be better. In terms of features, I am yet to explore the whole solution, and the current features seem okay.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

It is quite scalable. You can extend it both vertically and horizontally very quickly. Currently, we have approximately 50 users.

We haven't had support issues.

It is easy and quick to deploy.

It has the pay-as-you-go model. Its pricing should be better.

We didn't evaluate other solutions. We trusted Azure because it is a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has been in the industry for a long time. Microsoft has been providing solutions for businesses for a long time, whereas other vendors mostly provide solutions for consumers.

I would recommend this solution. We plan to keep using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We have a project with a company that needs support for their IoT devices. We're setting up some databases for them. That's all I can say about it because it's confidential. But we're using the HSM and the Key Vault for security purposes. A wider area or a wider group can connect to this public cloud for security and storage. We also have our own application implemented on that cloud.

It's easy to use, and it's scalable. If we want to grow our product more, we can do it. Because of the availability of different geographic zones, we can also have many places and regions.

Security could be better. Once there was an attack, and we couldn't get to the cloud to see the reports for about five hours. If we want to back up the application in storage, we can't have a firewall. For now, it's secure. I think the main problem was the configuration.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three or four months.

Access to the virtual machine on Azure wasn't always available, but the application was always up and running.

The product is super scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The pricing is better than AWS.

I would recommend this cloud computing solution. When configured and planned well, I think it's a very good product. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure an eight.

We have some services that are customer-facing that was put on a public cloud. We also have some of the applications that we use in-house, and we put that in our private environment.

Currently, because we have migrated our infrastructure to the cloud, we boosted some of our core applications in the Windows virtual environment. We also make use of it for our call center solution.

I like a lot of features. For example, the Windows virtual solution has helped in such a way that our client-based application was converted into a web-based version through the use of the Windows Virtual Desktop. It makes life very easy for our users when working remotely from anywhere. Because of Azure, the work from home policy makes our work feel seamless. We make use of SharePoint, and collaboration has been very smooth and wonderful. We also make use of Microsoft Teams. It's been wonderful. It's been very awesome.

With Microsoft, our only concern is exchange rates because we're paying in dollars. It's very expensive for us because of the exchange rates. It would help if they partnered with someone locally so we can pay in our local currency. That's the only major area that we wanted them to look into. At least for exchange rate purposes, they should try to do something.

We have just migrated our infrastructure. I have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of months.

I can guarantee that it's 100% reliable.

It's very easy, and we don't regret this step at all. It's very scalable, and sometimes if we don't need the VM that we set up, we can quickly decommission it. Then if you wanted it back up again, we could bring it up quickly. It's very scalable. We have an average of 50 users at the moment.

Technical support is very good. I like that they have local partners and local support in our own country and not someone in another geographical region. When we wanted to do the setup with the Microsoft partner, we had some issues, and we reported it to them. They were very responsive. 

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The implementation was straightforward because Microsoft had some partners here. To be a good Microsoft partner, you would have done a lot of training with all this stuff, making our deployment and migrations very seamless.

We're paying in dollars, and it's very expensive for us because of the exchange rates. We have all kinds of agreements with the partner, and we'll be paying quarterly. But it depends on how you want to pay. It depends on the option that's flexible for you.

We would recommend this solution to potential users. I would advise them to analyze the infrastructure and what they want to achieve. After that, they should be able to get across to a good partner. 

That will help them a lot because they would need a good supportive partner. Migration can be very miserable, so they should consider a good partner. They should also have their own internal strategy on what they want to achieve. This will help the partners help them. 

We wanted to do a whole lot of things that cost us even more. But because we were able to get a reliable partner, they were able to guide us very well, and we were able to get some significant cost savings.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a ten.

We have been using it to modernize customers' environments. We propose that the customers consider moving a number of things into the public cloud instead of building and maintaining everything on-premise. 

The organization can focus more on real business problems instead of IT problems. It can also reduce the time spent setting up the infrastructure. This then makes the organization more agile and, in a lot of cases, more reliable. With the public cloud, if your design is okay, the chance of running into a serious outage is, in most cases, lower than that when relying on your own on-premise IT infrastructure, particularly in the case of companies with 50 to 500 people that typically don't have very big IT budgets.

I think the most useful feature has been the remote desktop. It has been very helpful when customers have old applications that are not architected to run remotely.

In my opinion, what could be improved is making the actual costs more predictable. It is very difficult to estimate the cost or the budget you are going to need to run your environment in Azure Cloud. You have to be a specialist to understand how you will be charged, which constantly changes.

As for additional features, it would be great if the pricing could be cheaper for those trying to study and use the cloud. Having a discounted pricing scheme or even a free usage scheme, like a sandbox that is free to use on a continuous basis, for those who are studying would help them to actually generate more business later on. The more people learn to use the clouds, the more business they will actually attract.

They will start pushing solutions into the cloud, but if they have no time or opportunity to learn to use it, they will not be confident in proposing cloud solutions. So until they have been able to validate it in a test environment or a learning environment, they won't take the risk and propose a cloud solution.

I've been involved with this solution for one year.

I think Microsoft Azure is fairly stable. It also depends on how you set up your design.

As advertised, the scalability should never be an issue. The only thing that would stop you from scaling would be that your application has an architecture that is not scalable.

For public clouds, customer service/technical support is okay. In general, the documentation is very good.

For those who are familiar with Azure, the initial setup is not that complex. However, for those who are using Azure for the first time, it's probably a bit more involved because they may need to create their own virtual data centers in the cloud with the necessary security measures. I think that often this is a bit underestimated mostly because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the new customer.

Software licensing models can be expensive depending on what you need compared to open source solutions, for example. However, if you don't have the technical skills, you may be better off paying for a license and support instead of trying to use open source solutions.

I would rate Microsoft Azure at eight on a scale from one to ten. 

I would advice others to take the time to study it carefully because there's a lot to understand and a lot to know before putting a solution in the clouds. Don't underestimate the complexity.

We just use it as a virtual environment.

It has been good financially because no CapEx investment is required for any of the on-prem infrastructures. It is an OPEX model, so it is easy for budgeting.

Its resiliency is most valuable. It is also a very scalable solution, so you can spend the resources on demand.

The interface for configuring the environment is not very intuitive. Certain things are at different places, and it is not easy to navigate.

They should have a more transparent licensing model. Currently, Microsoft's licensing is a bit clunky, and it keeps changing depending on the type of subscription you have. Different features are included, and sometimes, it is very hard to figure out the right licensing. So, the commercial aspect of the licensing can be improved, and they can make it easier to understand all the features that are included.

I have been using this solution for about a year and a half.

I can't complain.

It is a very scalable solution.

Thankfully, I didn't have to use support. We have a CSP, and we are dealing with our partner who deals with Microsoft on our behalf.

I am not sure, but I think this is the first cloud infrastructure that we have used.

It has a pretty straightforward deployment. There are just a couple of clicks. The deployment takes about a day.

We used the reseller.

Price-wise, it is comparable to other solutions for the features that we are using.

It is pretty straightforward. I would advise others to just make sure that you have an architecture that you want to implement. You need to understand what you want to achieve in order to build or configure the platform correctly. The infrastructure, architecture, and design are very important to fully understand what resource groups do you want to use because you're building around the resource groups. That's pretty much it. 

We are thinking of increasing the usage of the cloud, and I'm looking at alternatives. After all the research is done, we will see if it is going to be Azure or something else.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten because it is doing everything I want it to do, and I don't really have a comparison with other similar products.

We are using Active Directory in Azure, so it's for all of the Office 365 services.

This product is quite easy to use and is available on-demand.

There are so many services available that the interface is a little bit messy, and when you're looking for a specific service, you have to know exactly where to search. Having better visibility in the interface would be an improvement.

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

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Azure is a scalable solution. We have approximately 150 users.

We have used technical support and it is very good.

As a cloud-based product, there is no installation.

This is an expensive product.

In summary, this is a good solution, and other than some improvements to the user interface, I cannot think of any features that are missing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's similar to AWS.

It's an infrastructure as a service.

It's a cloud service, so it's always up to date.

If you compare it with AWS, it is not very friendly to use. I find the UI better to work with on AWS.

They easily provide service with Windows, but not with Linux.

I am a beginner, and only been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of months.

Microsoft Azure is pretty stable.

It's a scalable product. Because it's a cloud service, there is an infinite opportunity for scaling.

We only have one or two people who are using this solution in our organization.

I reached out to support once, but they were not that quick to respond.

Technical support could be faster.

I have experience with AWS and Microsoft Azure is not that friendly. It is a bit complicated compared to AWS.

It's a cloud service. There is no installation.

It is expensive, but it is less expensive than AWS.

Even with it being cheaper than AWS, the price could be cheaper.

It is similar to AWS, where it is on-demand and is billed monthly.

We are not currently using this solution and we are not sure if we will be using it in the future.

 For those who are connected to the Windows Operating System, I would recommend this product. However, I would not recommend it for a Linux environment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use it to host virtual machines and migrate new web applications to the cloud.

With Microsoft Azure, we have a platform that lets us easily deploy applications to the cloud.

They should create integrations with more platforms.

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

It enables great scalability.

We are satisfied with the support from Microsoft.

It was quite easy to setup.

The current pricing is on a pay-as-you-go subscription.