Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure to host our software development solutions and solutions for reproduction.

We have many solutions running alongside Microsoft Azure that are mainly for the financial sector.

We use Microsoft Azure to host and develop.

It's great! It's very useful.

It has a separate environment for developers and developers' solutions. We have environments for PaaS and quality assurance, and we also have an environment where we can lend our solutions to our customers.

We like the Azure DevOps.

If you have large traffic amounts, Microsoft Azure will continue to provide our customers with the best storage experience.

It's very secure.

Microsoft Azure has incredible customization.

It's not user-friendly because it is made for developers. A normal user can't use it, but for a developer, it is a very friendly solution.

The initial setup can be improved. It should be simplified and made easier for developers to set it up.

I would like to see the use of Microsoft DevOps simplified. It's automation to develop and deploy software that is very difficult to use. It is so complicated and we need extra time to learn it. It is not easy. 

I have been working with Microsoft Azure since 2016.

We use the standard S3 applications.

Microsoft Azure is very reliable. It's a highly stable solution.

Microsoft Azure offers huge scalability. We can manage scalability automatically or manually. It is very fast and very reliable.

We have approximately 30 users in our organization who use Microsoft Azure.

The service is very good. They are highly technical and provide answers to things that are not easy to apply. Before the pandemic, at least, the support was good and very fast. 

We had some issues with support after the pandemic, where the replies took a very long time. Technical support could improve their response time. They should respond faster.

We use many Microsoft tools, such as Microsoft Teams, also Skype, and Google Meet.

The initials setup is difficult. It requires specialists. 

Similar to Google Cloud and Amazon Web Services, it is complex.

It can take six to twelve months to deploy this solution.

We had help from specialists to help with the complex setup. It is not easy for everyone.

I would suggest calling a specialist who is certified to help with the setup and the deployment, don't do it yourself. The specialists are reliable and can deploy the solution faster.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten.

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.

We primarily use the solution as a platform for our applications and security.

The application gateway is very good.

We like the WAF feature.

The product has been quite stable.

The scalability potential is very good.

Technical support is very good.

The configuration process is very minimal and happens very quickly.

The solution should emulate what MuleSoft is doing. At the moment MuleSoft has a lot of other features compared to Azure API integration. Just the coverage of the features, for example, could improve. Azure should offer more coverage of the features.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years.

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

The solution scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

We have about 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We do have plans to continue to use the solution and may even increase usage in the future.

Technical support has been good overall. They are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of service we receive.

I don't really have experience with other solutions at this time. I typically work with Azure.

There isn't much of an implementation process as the solution is in the cloud.

However, you do need to do some configurations in order to ensure it's set up as you need it to be. This part of the process takes a minimal amount of time.

We have about 60 to 70 people who can handle deployment and maintenance within our organization.

While I could handle the process myself, in our case, we had a network architect handle the configuration process.

I'm a consultant.

As we are using the cloud version of the solution, we are always using the latest version as well. It updates automatically.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Our production system is on Microsoft Azure. We are using the latest version of this solution.

We have services for the data in the SQL Server database. We also have servers for our web-based applications. All transactions occur in this environment. We also have a mirror environment in Azure, which is a different cloud geographically. 

There are many useful features. We use web apps, so instead of starting a web server, we just have machines running some web services. This was helpful for us in terms of the scalability of the application. We also use Active Directory for authentication and some services for the data backup.

It is a very good and reliable solution. It was easy to implement this solution. It fits very well into our plans and covers our needs to provide infrastructure in the cloud. The portal to configure new resources is very easy, and it is very easy to allocate new resources.

We would like it to be cheaper. As a customer, we always want to pay less.

I have been using this solution since 2013.

In the past, they had some major outages, but it is a pretty stable platform.

It is very scalable. It is as easy as assigning more resources, but it also depends on the architecture. If you have web apps or microservices, it is easy to implement a kind of dynamic or elastic growth. When you have a lot of activities, Azure will automatically assign more resources, which is pretty convenient.

We have around 200 users in our company, but we also have a merchant network that uses our system. This network has about 1,000 users.

We had to escalate one case with the Microsoft team because we lost the connection with a data store. We got a response back within an hour of the event, and it was normal. Their service is fine in this regard. You can also have a better support contract, but what we have is enough for our purposes and needs.

It is pretty easy. You just have to follow the step-by-step guidelines. The deployment happens almost immediately. If you need to increase or upgrade a server or have a new server, you just go to the portal and create a new resource, such as a server or a disk. It is very fast. There is no waiting time at all.

Its price can be cheaper. Price is always an issue. We pay around $10,000 per month for all resources.

We are launching a new platform for software as a service. We create our software, and for a new concept and architecture, we are comparing AWS with Azure. We are exploring AWS. It is a different stack, and we don't have much experience with it. So far, we don't have a lot of information about production on AWS because the product is not live yet. It will take a couple of months to be finished.

It is a good solution. If you have any on-premise applications, you have to be very careful about the architecture. What you don't want to do is copy what you have in your data center and put it on the cloud because there are various alternatives once you are in the cloud. Therefore, I would recommend others to review the architecture and take advantage of the features that it provides.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten. We are happy with Microsoft and this solution.

We primarily use the solution to host the web server.

The product is very convenient for us. It ensures the website is set up right.

The solution can scale if you need it to. Expanding it is easy.

The product is rather stable. We haven't had any issues with it in that sense.

The solution is very easy to use.

I can't say that we have any complaints in terms of features or lack of capabilities within the product. Over the last two years, I'd say it's been so far so good.

It would be ideal if they could reduce costs a bit. Right now, we find the product to be expensive.

I've been using the solution for around two years at this point. It hasn't been too long.

The solution so far has been reliable. We haven't had problems with stability over the last two years of use. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good.

The scalability of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so rather easily. It shouldn't give them any trouble.

We don't currently have plans to increase the usage ourselves at this point. There's no scaling that will be done in the near future on our end.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past. We had a question we needed them to answer and they were able to help us. I'd say they were knowledgeable and responsive and that we've been happy with the level of service so far.

The licensing is based on usage. I'm not sure of the exact costs involved as it's not an aspect of the solution that is my responsibility.

That said, it is my understanding that it is a bit expensive.

We're just a customer. We aren't a reseller or consultant and we don't have a professional business relationship with Microsoft.

We only really use the solution to host a website, and therefore we don't really use the full scope of features right now.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations as it is rather easy to use.

Overall, we've been quite happy with the product. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

This year, we built our own data center, and we use this solution to extend it into the cloud.

We have implemented the ExpressRoute connection, which is an established circuit between the local provider and the Microsoft network edge. This leads you directly to the Microsoft data center.

The digital workload transfers from on-premises here to the Azure cloud, which is a hybrid model. We have two different zones in Azure. One is for the intranet, and the other is for the internet.

The most valuable feature is the performance for our digital workloads.

At times, the support is terrible. It is not bad all of the time, but many times when we have contacted them, there are juniors without refined knowledge. We have had instances where it takes a long time to solve just a single problem.

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

The stability depends on the customer. They decide the compute and other things, such as the level of support. If they take premium support then the SLA given by Microsoft is higher than when you choose a virtual machine without premium.

At the moment, we are reviewing and studying how to migrate our full workload to the cloud. We have one datacenter with more than 120 virtual machines and we are learning how to do the migration. Once it is achieved, the hybrid model we have can become a public model.

Our design was complex because we wanted it done in a certain way. There were lots of things to be done. We just experienced problems in the firewall's compatibility with Azure because when you implement a firewall, it's not as straightforward as in the case when you implement it on-premises. This led to some challenges and we had to troubleshoot the deployment of one firewall for a full month.

Even the local providers did not have experience with how to deploy that one firewall, which is why we spent so much time troubleshooting. It turns out that when you deploy a firewall on-premises and you want to migrate to the cloud, there are certain considerations that you have to keep in mind, which makes it more complex.

For our second firewall implementation, it was faster and better.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

This is definitely a product that I recommend, but it has to be done smartly. Not everything can be migrated and you shouldn't try to migrate everything as-is. It has to be done properly and people have to understand how services that are to be migrated need to be done. Also, there are some services that should not be migrated because it is better to keep them on your own cloud. This should all be studied in advance.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I primarily use Microsoft Azure for application development in our development environment.

The solution is pretty dynamic.

We prefer that we can configure our environment very quickly. 

We can add some notes if we need to. The testing capabilities are great. We can use the load balancing environment, and we can test a lot of different components from an infrastructure point of view. We can also test different scenarios within the application. 

The solution is very simple to use. It has a lot of great practical applications we really appreciate.

The licensing model is not ideal. It is not very useful in predicting actual costs. Sometimes we found that we could not accurately predict how much specific products will cost the company in the future. Just now, for example, we want to start using Log Analytics for Office 365, however, we don't know the final price. It's inconvenient for us as we cannot predict the budget and it puts off making a decision. For Microsoft, it's very disadvantagous.

The solution could use mutual segmentation for servers. It would be ideal if you could constitute something like five or 15 groups among the groups of different computers inside Azure. If you could get something like logical groups of servers outside the mutual servers, it would be an improvement. 

Sometimes we want to start and do a penetration test. If, for example, we're planning new security scanning for our customers. You have to inform Microsoft that you want to start a penetration test. If you have regular scans Microsoft should allow regular scanning, without having to plan and to ask for approval from the Microsoft side every time. When it's meant to be a regular occurrence, it's very inconvenient for us.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. It doesn't cause bottlenecks or any other major issues for us. We find it to be reliable.

While we can dynamically add servers according to the user request, it's not profitable for us. Currently, it is possible to scale the solution. It just costs more to do so.

We are not so satisfied with technical support right now. Sometimes they cannot help us. We had problems with licensing and with the invoicing and so on and so on. Sometimes it's not very easy to explain the problems, the technical or non-technical, and they can't really assist us effectively.

In one instance, we had an issue with anti-spam on the service. We were trying to figure out why certain emails were being marked as spam. It took far too long to get to the bottom of the cause.

It's hard to gauge what the pricing will be, so It's hard to plan with the solution. The licensing needs to be more transparent and obvious.

We're simply Microsoft customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with it, although we would prefer if pricing was more transparent.

• Virtual Networking
• Security
• Feature packing
• Virtual Machines
• Ease of implementation
• Azure AD
• Azure AD Directory Domain Services
• Database as a Service
• Operations Management Suite
• RBAC

Mobility, no more "metal" on-premise, cloud-based directory with SSO features, sped implementing new solutions, reduced skillset for management and reporting.

We have a full Azure plus Office 365 implementation for servers and desktops, authenticating users on Azure AD over 802.1X switching and wireless. No on-premise servers, DC's, file-servers, etc.

Stability. Microsoft is implementing changes too fast and sometimes things break.

Three years, but the full stack only since January 2017.

None.

Yes. Beware of August. Microsoft makes some big changes during this month and they have an impact on customers.

None.

10 out of 10.

10 out of 10.

On-premise traditional solutions.

Complex in the beginning, because the company I was migrating had some peculiarities.

The latter move was totally stable as we did a cutoff migration and no garbage was imported. Some downtime was expected, but this was minimal.

In-house, with support from a vendor team. Excellent support: 10 out of 10.

Not yet calculated since it was a major digital transformation and an ongoing project.

Setup cost is low and Microsoft may help your project financially with services from a partner.

Be sure to know your licensing or ask for advice. It's worth it. You may be led into something you don't need, if following Microsoft or a vendor.

No.

Evaluate extensibly (the actual scenario), have a definitive vision of where you want to be in a near future, align the strategy with your management and expect that it may not be cheaper. A correct vision of a project of this kind cannot be focused on lowering costs but vision alignment, future scalability, speed on delivering services, and maintaining smaller IT crews focused on business needs.

Please do some previous math regarding actual licensing versus a costs model. Extrapolate this to a five year plan to match current hardware lifespans.