Microsoft Azure Reviews

Microsoft Azure is entirely our current cloud computing product in which the team is engaged. We are using the stack for development and application logs, and audit perception from the application. We are using the log services.

The main benefit of Microsoft Azure is that it is cloud-based. We are using Microsoft Visual Studio for our code and it is tightly integrated with Microsoft Azure. Additionally, the solution is user-friendly.

The dashboard of Microsoft Azure could be better.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately two years.

Microsoft Azure is very stable.

I have found the scalability of Microsoft Azure very good.

We have approximately 60 users using this solution, we have plans to increase usage to 100 users.

I have not contacted the support from Microsoft directly. However, we have a consultant from Microsoft providing us support when needed.

We have a six-person DevOps team that does the maintenance and support of Microsoft Azure.

The price of  Microsoft Azure is reasonable.

I would highly recommend this solution to others. There are still unexplored areas of this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We use Azure for the Active Directory and integration with Exchange Online. Our customers need it to manage, connect, and administrate the permissions from Cloudbase. Here in Egypt, we are not using or connecting with the cloud-based application, but in the last two years, we have supplied the solution for our customers. In total, we have between 10 and 20 customers using Azure.

I've been working with Microsoft Azure for about two years.

It's a cloud-based application, so installation is straightforward and doesn't take much time.

The price of the Azure license could be cheaper.

I rate Azure nine out of 10. It's a perfect application, and I would recommend it to others.

We primarily use it for infrastructure and for some of its containers. It's very similar to AWS.

We moved to it as part of the initiative for the country to start using Azure services.

The solution offers many of the same features and has similar functionality to AWS.

The performance is good.

It's easy to use.

We find that it's stable. 

The solution scales quite well.

The solution is less mature than AWS. That said, it is catching up quickly.

The solution could always be cheaper. That way, it would be less expensive than AWS.

I've been dealing with the solution since 2016. It's been about five years or so. I've had some time to work with it a bit. 

The stability is very good. It's a reliable solution. There are no bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the scalability to be very good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease. It's not a problem at all.

Technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. We are pleased with the level of attention we get if we need assistance. 

We have also used AWS. We use both of them right now and like them both. They are very similar tools. 

There isn't really an initial setup. it's on the cloud and subscription-based. 

The pricing is more or less the same as AWS. They are very competitive with each other. There isn't too much of a difference, price-wise. 

In our case, the solution doesn't have a license. It's subscription-only. However, you can buy your own license separately and install it on whatever system application you're using on Azure. This is the same in the case of AWS.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a good solution with a lot of potential and we've been happy with its capabilities so far. 

Whether or not I would recommend it to other companies depends on the use case. If you have a specific use case for using the cloud in general, then likely it makes sense to go with Azure.

We use the solution for analytics, storage and retention, for just about everything.

The solution is fantastic, with Teams, the works. It's just an amazing product.

It is stable and collaborative. It also helps that every person has Microsoft. So, the ease of use and the compatibility between users is fantastic for collaboration.

The biggest area needing improvement involves the licensing cost. The cost of actually acquiring the solution is of much significance to small to medium enterprises, especially in countries that have a negative currency. The biggest challenge we face in Africa is the lack of awareness among overseas, European and American vendors of the massive impact that the exchange rate has in the South African market. A cost of $20 for you can equal 300 rand for us. This is what most vendors neglect to realize, that a price affixed to something for the European or American market cannot be applied to the rest of the world or to a continent like Africa. The disregarding by vendors of the importance of the exchange rate amounts to ignorance or arrogance.

My issues are not with the product itself, which I think is great, including Microsoft's strategy concerning respecting it and the consolidation. The pricing, in terms of what can be referred to as traditional third world countries, needs to be addressed. 

The main takeaway that vendors should leave with is that they should not neglect the market in South Africa or in Africa. It is not enough for them to want to have a presence or sell a license. They should also show a desire to sell a value proposition.

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

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very scalable.

I have clients who use it and there are plans to increase its usage.

In respect of technical support, Microsoft's skill level in the African market is great. There has been swinging about in terms of Microsoft's skill-set over the last three years and I think this boils down to the company having undertaken much training and education. McAfee can learn from Microsoft. 

As it is a cloud-based solution, there is no installation involved. It is more about configuration.

We pay for the license on a monthly basis. 

The solution is cloud-based.

I utilize it both for my personal use as well as that of my organization.

We have a group company and I think this amounts to around a thousand users.

I would absolutely recommend the solution to others.

Taking into account the usability of Microsoft Azure, I would rate it as a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for executing the ADF pipelines through the database port. We provide the scripts in the database, we run it, and it goes through the ADF pipeline. Afterward, through the database command, the ADF pipeline will run and push the data into Azure SQL. 

I have found the solution to be flexible, easy to use, and the documents are straightforward to understand. For example, it is flexible, we have a single pipeline that has three phases, within approximately 15 minutes the records get transferred into this solution efficiently.

Additionally, the solution is well integrated with other solutions such as Power BI.

When we are doing transfers of records in large amounts, for example, petabytes of data or few long datasets, the performance should not degrade as it does. I am working on big data platforms like Informatica and others and even though there are terabytes of data being transferred it does it immediately. However, in this solution, I would like the performance to be there when building a large dataset to integrate the data.

I have been using the solution for the past three years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution to be scalable. We use Teradata for large data and we are building the pipelines for it, so far it has operated well. We have approximately 25 individuals using the solution in my organization.

The technical support is very good, if you have an issue they will be able to help.

I have used Informatica in the past and it has some performance advantages compared to this solution.

The solution does require a license.

I would recommend this solution to others and we are going to continue using it in the future. We have numerous clients switching to this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure a nine 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.

One of the use cases that we have is with our installation of SAP on private. We also have some apps that we have developed that are public, and we use the security system that they provide. We also use Microsoft Sentinel, which is the SIEM that helps us to align with the alerts and the incidents. We have a combination of public and private clouds, but everything is in Azure.

Its ability to scale is most valuable. There are certain periods of the year when we are busier, and we're able to scale up and scale down with Azure depending upon our needs.

They're already doing quite a bit. I'm not unsatisfied with anything that they're doing right now. They can maybe make the transitions a little smoother and improve its pricing. The pricing for the end-user packages is a bit high.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. It is very simple to scale.

You have to go through a lot of preliminary levels before you finally get to someone, but you can get a difficult problem solved. There is a process that you have to follow.

As far as the setup goes, most of it is pretty simple. When we started working with Microsoft Intune and a little bit on the unified labeling, it became a bit more complicated, but we're getting through it.

Shared active directory and multifactor authentication (MFA) are a little bit difficult to introduce because once you put something on it, it affects all of their Office products and anything that deals with Microsoft, whether it is SharePoint, OneDrive, or something else. Often, we want to activate it for an app and not so much for everything else, but that's our peculiar quirk. I don't think there is anything that Microsoft needs to change necessarily.

The pricing for the end-user packages is a bit high. It is full of very interesting services, but I would still like it to be less expensive.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.