Microsoft Azure Reviews

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. 

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.

Microsoft Azure has enabled the organization to set up efficient cloud infrastructure at cost-friendly rates. 

It has a DR backup system that keeps data under safe storage for future recovery in case of any disaster. The Azure virtual machine has been the game changer in the implementation of reliable cloud computing services. 

It allows quick connection and can successfully integrate with cloud applications to enhance better workflows. It integrates Web Application Firewall which has firm security features for monitoring data flow and can easily prevent SQL injection in web apps. 

The URL-based routing system enhances precise routing protocol based on authorized ERL paths.

The platform has stabilized the enterprise backend servers with session affinities that enhance reliable feedback to client requests. 

The dynamic data management system has prevented various ransomware attacks that could lead to data loss. Azure keeps our data programs under 24/7 surveillance to ensure no critical errors can affect the entire workflow. 

The seamless integrations enhance excellent services from Microsoft Azure. We have fully complied with international data policies from the set of data models that are authorized by Zure.

Azure storage has exceptional scalability that gives the organization expandable space for storing data under secure cloud servers. The user-friendly interface enhances quick setup procedures and efficient task management, saving time and resources. 

The robust encryption services increase the confidence of tech users. The drag-and-drop features save time from the low code environment. 

Azure SQL Database has a serverless database that can integrate easily with APIs. Azure disk storage has multiple user cases that enable each team to select size and performance based on user requirements.

The pricing criteria can be improved with broken-down terms that can be understood easily. 

There are rare cases of time-consuming technical issues. The Azure team can devise efficient and streamlined procedures for dealing with critical technicalities that can affect workflows. 

Integrating the system with third-party platforms not connected to the Microsoft system is not easy. 

Maintenance is sometimes hectic due to poor cloud and on-premise server integrations. 

The overall performance has been excellent, and I can recommend Microsoft Azure to other enterprises.

I've used the solution for two years.

It is highly scalable.

I am impressed by the storage services and security configurations.

The support team offers reliable services.

Positive

I have not used any alternative product.

The setup was straightforward.

Implementation took place through the vendor team.

We've witnessed an ROI of 55%.

The setup procedure was simple and the cost is relatively friendly.

I have not evaluated any other platforms.

I am impressed by the performance.

We use the solution for hosting business applications and the test environment.

The compliance is really good. It provides visibility of our top risks and recommendations on how to close them. Sentinel is really good from a security standpoint. The product provides a host of security tools. We deploy and configure everything ourselves. So far, we have not had any issues related to Azure.

The solution must improve its pricing.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

I rate the stability of the tool a nine and a half out of ten.

The tool is highly scalable, depending on the design. I've not had any issues. We have to factor in cost and design. About 2000 people use the solution in our organization. It is extensively used in our organization. Based on business growth, we might increase the number of users.

We had some technical issues. The support team was ready to support us once we raised a ticket. They responded in a reasonable time and escalated the issue when necessary.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. The information is readily available, and there are many local partners who are extremely supportive. Deployment is just a matter of getting the login set up. It was pretty fast.

Our in-house team had been trained to deploy the tool, so they knew what to do. We have a few trained cloud admins who can manage the product. There are a lot of automation options, so they don't need a big crowd to work with it.

The product has a good ROI. It depends on how we handle the cost based on resource creation and the data we build based on our setup.

We have a licensing option from our partner in which the solution is bundled up with a whole host of other services. There are no additional costs associated with the product.

It is one of the best tools in the market. It's a very good cloud service. It has a lot of good security options. The reporting options are also good. The on-premise AD is fantastic. The tool gives us flexibility in deployment. If we get the design wrong, that's not Azure’s problem. It's our problem. Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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 use Microsoft Azure for a variety of applications, including medical software, IV systems, and repair projects. It is great for BI tasks, helping me analyze data and generate insights. I have also used Azure for hosting various events and managing different projects efficiently.

The most valuable features of Azure for me are its ease of management, recoverable virtual machines with backup support, excellent customer support, and user-friendly interface. It allows me to do a lot on my own and provides a comprehensive cloud solution.

From an operations perspective, I find Azure portal, user management with Active Directory, and Azure DevOps to be the most valuable services. They make it easy to manage projects, user access, and administrative tasks efficiently.

While Azure continually improves its services, one area for enhancement could be in the realm of big data and unstructured data storage. Although I haven't explored this aspect extensively, focusing on improving offerings in this area could benefit users who rely on such data storage solutions.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for almost six years.

I have not had any stability issues with Azure.

Azure's scalability, including features like Azure Elastic for searches, has had a significant impact on my project. It has improved performance, even with large volumes of data. In our organization, which has over 200 technical resources, more than 20 people work with Azure across various projects and clients.

Azure's support is responsive and helpful, making it easier to navigate any challenges. I would rate them at a nine out of ten.

Positive

Setting up Azure initially can sometimes require assistance, especially for migrations between tenants, but overall it is user-friendly. Complexity depends on the task. Azure's support and documentation are crucial for our deployment process.

Deployment in Azure is made easy and manageable through helpful configuration and management tools. Initial deployment may take one to two hours, but subsequent deployments typically take around 30 minutes, depending on factors like database and application size. Upgrades can be even quicker, sometimes taking only 13 minutes.

Working with Azure has shown a positive return on investment, particularly in projects involving migration from data centers. Benefits include improved performance, availability, and reduced downtime, leading to enhanced customer experiences and business outcomes.

Azure's pricing is generally considered reasonable and cost-effective compared to AWS, although AWS prices can be higher in some cases.

In a project, we needed to gather data from various APIs, including Google Analytics, and integrate them seamlessly. Azure played a critical role in this by facilitating the integration of different technical services and allowing us to efficiently ingest data from CSV files. We also utilized Azure to process and output data in different formats, ensuring smooth operations throughout the project.

We rely on Azure for all our cloud computing needs because it filters almost all our requirements. It fulfills everything we need for cloud computing, and we are very satisfied with its services.

My experience with Azure Security tools has been positive. Azure offers robust security features like multi-factor authentication and role-based access control, ensuring a high level of security for our projects. I haven't encountered any issues or breaches, though user management practices also play a role in maintaining security.

Azure's main pros include strong support for Microsoft-native services like Azure SQL and cost-effectiveness for certain workloads compared to AWS. However, licensing for non-Microsoft services may be a bit more complex on Azure.

My advice for organizations considering implementing Azure is to assess their specific business needs and customize their infrastructure accordingly. Utilize Azure's diverse services and storage capacities intelligently, optimizing cost by leveraging features like auto start and stop for non-essential resources.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure as an eight out of ten.

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.

My company is a platinum partner of Microsoft, owing to which we resell the platform and licenses to our customers. My company also uses the product within the organization.

From the perspective of a user who has a partnership relationship with Microsoft, I would want Microsoft Azure to provide some credits that can be used to test and validate Microsoft’s different solutions since it is an area where the product lacks.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for four to five years. My company has a partnership with Microsoft.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company caters to the needs of enterprise-sized companies who need Microsoft Azure.

I rate the product's initial setup phase an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The time required for the product's deployment depends on the complexity and size of the infrastructure.

I rate the product price a seven or eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price, and ten is high price.

The pricing of the licenses attached to the solution depends on the requirements of the users.

The projects or workload that have been migrated to Microsoft Azure in my company is an area that is managed by a different team since I work as an accounts manager. My job role is just to get the business for our company. Once I get the business for my company, I submit the details to the technical or delivery team, which takes care of the business part.

The feature of the product that has been most impactful for our company's operations stems from the fact that everything is on a single dashboard. In general, everything is on a single dashboard or a single page where users can monitor and manage everything related to the product.

The product's scalability benefited our company's business needs since we can upgrade it or scale up to meet our needs.

The knowledge related to the integration capabilities of Microsoft Azure with the existing products in my company's infrastructure lies with the technical team in my organization.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.