Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use the product to stream data from devices to the system, transform data, and configure web apps using SaaS services.

One significant area for improvement in Microsoft Azure is the cost associated with its services. While integrating services from different vendors, the perceived costs are high, with occasional confusion about specific charges, especially in data transfer scenarios between regions. This cost factor poses a barrier for small companies, and they could simplify the process and reevaluate pricing structures.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for seven years.

The platform is stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I have worked with around 5000 Microsoft Azure users in our previous company. It is highly scalable.

In the IaaS approach, setting up virtual machines (VMs) allows for scalability adjustments based on memory and CPU consumption. Similarly, for applications developed with Azure RPA (Robotic Process Automation) or Azure Logic Apps, scalability can be efficiently managed by configuring the app service plan.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The experience with Microsoft's customer support has been middling, neither exceptionally good nor bad. The support team takes time to respond. It is a lengthy process and could be improved.

Neutral

The complexity of implementation depends on the different setups. We can utilize the portal, CLI, or alternative providers like Terraform. The deployment process in Azure varies based on the specific build requirements and the nature of the application being deployed, whether it's through GitHub or directly in Azure. The time taken for deployment in Azure varies greatly depending on factors such as the complexity of the application, the number of integrated applications, the volume of code, and the artifacts involved.

The product generates a return on investment in terms of time savings on setup, installation, and scalability. It also depends on the specific consumption patterns and the extent to which Azure services are utilized for our compute and networking needs.

The product is expensive, particularly with services such as Microsoft SQL Server incurring significant costs. It could be more competitive in terms of pricing.

Azure supports the development and hosting of various applications, including those built with ASP.NET. We have developed an application using ASP.NET versions 4, 6, and 7, and then deployed it to Azure for hosting. Data analytics is one of the efficient features as well.

The features I find most useful for cloud computing needs, particularly for fax services, include Azure RPA (Robotic Process Automation), Azure Logic App, and Azure Service Bus.

We can easily integrate the product with MS SQL Server and Azure SQL Database as a service. Further, we can utilize event apps within the IT infrastructure.

I have experienced significant benefits from Azure's security and compliance tools, particularly in the area of identity management. Working with Microsoft Identity, including Azure Active Directory (Azure AD), has proven valuable for operations involving customer-to-customer (CTC), business-to-customer (BTC), and business-to-business (B2B) scenarios. The customization capabilities help us with the registration of applications under Azure Active Directory, enabling robust authentication and authorization mechanisms.

I recommend the product for small companies or startups. It is also a good option for established companies planning to reach beyond certain limitations in terms of business.

I rate it a seven out of ten.

In any general use case, if we want to run any application on our own virtual machines, that's Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). If we want to use a readily available managed service in Azure, like Azure Storage, Azure Security Center, or Logic Apps, those are Platform as a Service (PaaS) offerings.

This is because they're provided on the platform, and they manage them. We can run our data and applications on them. If we're using a complete application as a service provided by vendors, like Office 365 (including the email service), that's considered Function as a Service (FaaS) because we're not configuring anything on our end – we're just using it.

I'm involved in all kinds of services, whether it's IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS. It depends on the specific customer requirement.

We implemented Azure for our infrastructure needs. Our core components include virtual machines, virtual networks, network security groups (NSGs), load balancers, public IPs, and private IPs. For private endpoints, those are more specific to Platform as a Service (PaaS) offerings.

Additionally, we utilize a hub network with a firewall, DNS server, and Active Directory server (AD). This aligns with the enterprise landing zone concept, where a connectivity subscription with a hub network that includes a firewall, DNS, AD, Azure Monitor, etc., would be implemented.

These shared services reside in the hub network if we have on-premises servers or other large assets running in Azure.

For management purposes, we have a separate subscription – the management subscription – which includes Log Analytics workspace and other data monitoring tools. Finally, the landing zone itself would house our workloads and applications.

We rely on many security features to manage our Azure cloud environment. It's a kind of framework we follow. First, there's posture management with compliance by following specific regulations. Then, for specific services, mainly Azure Defender and Azure Sentinel are important. They use the latest threat intelligence to identify threats and vulnerabilities. 

On top of that, there are policies to ensure your security posture is maintained, followed by firewalls, Azure Defender, and Azure Sentinel for threat intelligence and response.

All these services are managed services and they are auto-scalable.

In Azure, there are so many things. Especially when dealing with different regions. Suppose we are far from a region and using it over the internet, then probably more Edge Zones in nearby cities would help. This would give easier access with no delay or latency.

Right now, the problem in many remote areas is they may have low-bandwidth internet connections. This can make it difficult to access large services that require more bandwidth to download data and such. So, if the service were closer, it would be faster to access. At least they could access it easily.

Again, there are many other suggestions from a technical perspective on different services. But this is just from a user's perspective, and user demographics can create challenges. Other users with very good access might not have latency or other issues, but they might have operational challenges.

For example, let's say ExpressRoute. It's very expensive and mainly available for enterprise customers. Suppose individual users want that kind of dedicated connectivity over a service provider like Airtel or Vodafone and have an ExpressRoute from their phone, but is there any availability for a lower-cost option?

Because it's very expensive as well, if there were any such services available at a lower cost, then that would really help customers, especially SMBs, to have more consistent and reliable applications.

The main improvement I expect is capacity improvement. For example, live streaming applications require a lot of backend computing power. During events like football matches, millions of requests can occur per second. Existing services might not be sufficient to handle this. 

We need to know the maximum scalability based on data center capacity limitations. In some cases, we have to deny customer requests due to insufficient capacity. So, improved scalability is a key area for development, and I'm sure other cloud providers face similar challenges.

There are a lot of services already in Azure, but from a regular user's perspective, improvements can be made to specific services and features. For example, in Kubernetes, initially, it was limited. You could only create a Kubernetes cluster in one subnet. 

If all the IPs in that subnet were used, you couldn't expand that subscription. That was an issue, but it's been addressed. Now, you can increase the number of nodes by creating a new node pool in the same cluster with additional subnets. Improvements like this feature-based approach can be applied to many services. 

Another key area for improvement is the Azure load balancer. Currently, it only supports virtual machines (VMs) running in the same virtual network (vNet) on the backend. 

They should definitely support machines or IPs running on-premises (prem) or in other Azure VNets. GCP and AWS already support that. So, Azure Load Balancer should support that as well because being able to provide support is a very basic requirement or a valid request from any customer. These kinds of feature requests can be improved from a cloud service provider's perspective.

I have been using Azure storage for five to six years. 

It is a stable solution because it depends on the workload you expect. Based on that data, you can configure how many users it can handle.

Managed services are definitely more efficient than IaaS and offer a performance-centric approach.

It is a scalable solution because it depends on how the user manages it. But any services we choose in Azure are inherently scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. Nothing is truly complex unless your solution or requirement itself is complex.

The deployment time depends on my requirements. Suppose a customer needs a very small environment, like two or three cluster machines with a standard load balancer on top, running their application on those VMs. It would hardly take 30 to 45 minutes to create the virtual machines (VMs), create a load balancer, allocate a public IP address, and set up a virtual network (vNet). 

At the very beginning, we had to create a subscription. Within the subscription, you'll create a resource group. And within the resource group, we'll be creating a virtual network. Inside the virtual network, we'll deploy the VMs, a load balancer, a public IP, and a network security group (NSG).

Additionally, if I want to make it more secure, I can create a firewall as well. So, all of these together should be deployable within an hour.

The number of people like developers required for the deployment depends on your environment. For instance, if you use an IaaS solution, you'll need more resources on your end to manage it. 

But with a PaaS service, you'll need fewer people because the cloud service provider manages half of it. With a SaaS solution, you don't need anyone to manage it – the cloud service provider handles the entire application. You just use it. 

So, it depends on the solution type. Therefore, more complex solutions require more resources to manage.

When we decide to increase capacity, we always consider the ROI and look at the projections for the next three to five years. Big investment decisions are only made based on that. 

Similarly, any customer considering adopting a service in Azure, like Azure SQL Database or Logic Apps, will first look at the return on investment. They'll consider how much they're investing in these services, how many users will be using them, and how much money they'll make from them. 

If it's not profitable based on their expectations or KPIs, they obviously won't add those services. So, it depends on the customer's specific requirements and expectations. We recommend the best possible services for their needs.

Azure licensing costs. We always compare licensing to the ROI.  Azure costing can be multi-layered. Increased capacity depends on your requirements and any contracts you have. On top of that, there's a separate cost for the licenses of the applications and operating systems you install in that capacity. 

So, as long as you're using the existing capacity, you won't be charged extra for that. However, if you increase capacity, you'll only be charged for the services you use on that additional capacity, not for the capacity itself. 

This depends on specific guarantees made in contracts that can last from two to eight years. These guarantees ensure investment has a return on investment. So, in that case, you wouldn't be charged for the additional capacity, just the services used on it.

Capacity increases based on customer requests are very rare, typically only for extremely high-volume scenarios. For example, millions of requests per second would require a service capacity increase beyond standard rates. Otherwise, we usually have enough capacity in different data centers across various regions.

Generally, most services and their licensing – it's that straightforward.

I would rate Azure an eight out of ten for managed services and IaaS a seven out of ten.

While I can advise, many factors influence decision-making. For example, if we invest in a ten-million-dollar data center capacity improvement, we need to see the return on investment within a one to three-year timeframe. If not profitable, such a large investment wouldn't be justifiable. 

Alternatively, customers could sign a five-year contract guaranteeing capacity usage and payment if we invest in the upgrade. These are the parameters that define decision-making in such situations.

We primarily use Microsoft Azure for data storage on the server. Additionally, we leverage Power Automate for process automation tasks. Some of our processes benefit from AI and ML capabilities, such as image processing and recognition. Specifically, we utilize the product for its Translation APIs, including language translation functionality.

We validate customer videos and speech in real-time by utilizing language translation services and image processing. This involves converting speech to text and vice versa in real-time. Customers record videos where they speak predefined text. We capture the image and speech, convert it to text, and compare it with the standardized text. Automating this process makes validation much easier compared to manual methods. On the Azure side, we primarily utilize its data storage and processing capabilities. Additionally, we leverage its AI/ML features, along with its automation capabilities.

Improving transparency in billing is crucial for us. Understanding how billing works only becomes clear once we start using the services. A more accurate billing calculator would help us anticipate costs associated with using specific services.

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Scalability is a key factor, so we opt for Microsoft Azure. Being a Microsoft product, we trust its scalability. Thus far, we haven't encountered any issues related to transaction processing or other scalability concerns. I rate it a seven out of ten since we are not running enterprise workloads. My company has 50 users. The usage of these use cases will increase as our business grows because they are directly related to serving the end consumer. Therefore, we anticipate a significant rise in usage over time.

Improvement is needed in the support process, especially for smaller and medium-sized customers who may not have existing support plans with Microsoft. Accessing support for these customers can be cumbersome, requiring additional payments before assistance is available. It is not clear when you buy the product. You will learn about additional support payments when you start using it. 

The tools' support is in multiple places, which can be complex for customers. It needs to be in one place. 

Neutral

I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. It can be deployed in two to three hours. 

Microsoft Azure's pricing is reasonable. We pay around 5000 dollars per annum. 

We evaluated Google Cloud, IBM Cloud, and AWS. 

We don't face many challenges with compliance and security. We rely on Azure Stack and adhere to the security standards they implement. Compared to AWS, we find it much simpler and easier to achieve interoperability and integration when using Microsoft Azure. You must ensure you have the right competency before using the product. It can become complicated if you don't have the right person to manage it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our use case involves running on-premises workloads on Microsoft Azure.

The tool has proven to be valuable for our organization by enhancing the availability and reliability of services. Our website and several applications hosted on it now benefit from improved availability features and increased reliability.

Microsoft Azure has significantly impacted operational efficiency by helping reduce or optimize costs, especially in the transition from on-premises capital expenditures to operational expenditures.

Navigating the frequent changes in the interface has been a challenge, requiring effort to keep up with updates. Options or features that were once located in one window may unexpectedly move to another, making it hard to stay current with the changes.

I have been using the product for three years. 

The tool's stability is good, and I would give it a nine out of ten. The challenges in connectivity, particularly when dealing with cloud services. It's complex and challenging to troubleshoot connectivity issues, especially when the source of the problem isn't clear.

The solution's scalability is excellent. My company has more than 500 users. We plan to increase the numbers. 

We chose to use Microsoft Azure primarily because of the package and solutions that Microsoft offered. The features and offerings provided by it were deemed to be better compared to other alternatives.

The product's deployment was a bit complex. The deployment process involved selecting the suitable Microsoft Azure service for migration and considering options like application services or virtual machines (servers). It required a thorough study to determine the most appropriate solution for the business use case. Our deployment team consists of ten resources. 

The deployment was a collaborative effort involving both our partners and the in-house team.

The value and benefits of using Microsoft Azure are significant, particularly for users like me. The services provided make it easy to access and available from anywhere.

The solution's licensing costs are yearly. 

We have initiated the migration of our on-premises workloads to the cloud, leveraging the application services offered by Microsoft Azure. We rely on third-party technologies for security. My advice would be to thoroughly plan and understand the cost implications before migrating to Microsoft Azure. Compare the technical capabilities of your on-premises design with your cloud design, and also conduct a financial comparison between on-premises and cloud expenses.

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I integrate our technologies into Azure. I just deploy, do some tests and POC for Azure. A recent project leveraged Azure's analytics services, it was related to Security Hub and Azure B1.

I support customers with their Azure implementations to better understand Azure architecture and how to integrate our technologies.

I like the ease of implementation and development and how quickly everything is ready.

Azure's security and compliance tools are not enough, and that's why other technologies like Fortinet would be much more recommended than the native ones.

Security, for sure, is an area of improvement. 

I have been working with it for three years now. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Our customers are medium and enterprise businesses. 

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

It's cloud-based, both public and private.

The deployment can take a few days. I deploy it in the customer's premises, in their private or public cloud account.

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten,  where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It's in line with other public cloud providers.

I would recommend it because it's easy to implement. But it always depends on the customer's needs. If their specific needs match with going towards the public cloud, then Azure would be one of my main recommendations.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

Our use cases for Microsoft Azure are financial-related.

Microsoft Azure covers all aspects, and having a single pane of glass becomes easier.

Microsoft Azure's design language is a little too basic. I would prefer Jira over Azure Boards. While Azure Boards offer quite a lot of customization possibilities, they also have their own limitations.

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

Microsoft Azure is a stable solution.

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

Microsoft Azure is quite a scalable solution. More than 5,000 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight to nine out of ten.

I have previously worked with AWS and Jira.

We didn’t face any challenges with the solution’s initial setup.

The solution's deployment time takes less than hours. We continuously keep doing it. We have releases every week, and our pipeline keeps running. We update the product every week.

One or two engineers are involved in the solution's maintenance. Microsoft Azure has positively affected our operational expenses and revenue growth, which is why we switched from Amazon to Microsoft Azure.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure to other users. I can use Azure Boards to do brainstorming. Microsoft Azure covers all aspects, and having a single pane of glass becomes easier.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten.

We utilize various Azure services such as Azure SQL, Azure Cosmos DB, Azure Data Factory, Azure Storage, and Azure Key Vault to build our data platform.

One of the features that I really like about Azure is its comprehensive environment for implementing a data platform. The solution provides multiple well integrated services which happen to work together seamlessly and provides flexibility and scale ability for use cases all around the industry.

There are some minor aspects which require improvement but they are very technical for an explanation. For example, the cost calculation for the services can be an unclear aspect which makes it difficult to estimate the expenses incurred accurately. Therefore, it will be beneficial to have it more transparent and apply your user-friendly cost estimation process to help users plan their budgets in a more efficient manner.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for the past 5 to 6 years.

I would rate it 9 out of 10 since it is stable but can get better.

I would rate the scalability 8 out of 10. The number of users on a platform is high but we do not have active engagement from all the users all the time. We have over 100 users but not all of them interact with the platform regularly. Keeping it aside, our main focus still remains on building data platforms which cater to different needs.

I have mixed feelings about Microsoft's technical support. While they do try to assist most of the time, I believe there's room for improvement. 

Neutral

As a data engineer, I mainly use these services rather than being involved in their implementation.

I would recommend Azure since it offers a variety of features and services which work together. This is quite rare in other platforms because they are not scalable. These features have helped us to promote our growth without any major challenges. The wide range of services make it a valuable option for implementing a data platform. However it is really difficult to quantify its value numerically. Different companies can Paradise different factors such as scalability, cost, or support which makes it different for each company.

It is important to keep in mind that there are also challenges such as the complex nature of estimating costs and no realistic expectations of savings due to the presence of hidden costs. Azure is an efficient solution but it requires improvement in terms of stability, support and pricing.

The monitoring features are very good.

Some of the dashboard features can be improved.

Some of the backup solutions for SAP are not compatible. For example, we have a Sybase database running, and Azure does not have an agent tool for connecting with it. This means that we have to use a third-party tool to properly backup our SAP Sybase system.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for between two and three years.

Azure is a stable product.

This is a scalable solution and we have been 200 and 300 people who use it.

The technical support is really good.

We have not used another public cloud.

We have an in-house team, and between 10 and 20 people maintain it.

The pricing model can be improved because we find that Azure pricing is a bit high.

We are planning to migrate our SAP system to the cloud, so we have been looking at and comparing different cloud solutions. We are analyzing and comparing Google Cloud Platform, Amazon, and the IBM Cloud. After we compare them all we will make a decision.

The suitability of this product depends on the customer's requirements and needs. AWS is stable and nice, the Google Cloud Platform is really improving a lot, and IBM Cloud is also available. The decision for which to use will be based on what kind of solutions you are deploying and how you want to integrate them. Ultimately, it is best to choose the provider that is most suitable for your existing workload. 

Overall, this is a good solution but there are certainly features that need to be improved, as well as the pricing.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.