Microsoft Azure Reviews

The solution is mainly used for setting up a big data platform on Azure and using some Azure items to navigate the data links and Data Factory.

The solution is quite flexible.

The product has been very stable for us so far.

You can scale the solution if you need to.

The solution needs to be easier to configure in the future. Right now, it's a bit difficult to accomplish.

Technical support could be better. They need to be more responsive.

The documentation should be more accessible. It's hard to find what we need right now.

It would be helpful if there was more data science or AI implemented in future versions.

The product needs to implement more API capabilities.

I've had about two years of experience using this solution.

We've found the stability to be quite good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We can scale the solution well. If a company wants to scale the solution, they can do so pretty easily.

We have about 20-50 people on the solution currently. We do plan to continue to use it in the future.

I've been in touch with technical support and I haven't found them to be overly helpful. They need to improve their support services. The answers take too long to get. We shouldn't have to wait for as long as we do. I'd say, at this point, we aren't exactly satisfied with the level of service they provide to their clients.

We previously used AWS. We simply used it for benchmarking.

I can't speak to the initial setup as I didn't have any experience with it. I wasn't part of the implementation process.

I did mage the Azure DevOps deployment.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

I'd recommend the solution for larger clients, especially if they are based in Europe or America.

In general, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a seven. It's been mostly good for us. However, it could use much better technical support and documentation to make things easier.

We primarily have the solution working as an infrastructure as a service.

The focus on security is excellent. We really appreciate that about the solution.

The maintenance of the solution is very good.

The migration capabilities are great. 

The implementation is easy.

The solution could be a bit more intuitive and easier to use.

The documentation could be a bit better. It could be more clear and accessible. It would be good to know if the person answering the questions was a Microsoft employee or just another user.

The pricing in our region can be a bit high.

I've been using the solution for as long as three years at this point.

The solution is very stable. There's never any downtime. We don't deal with crashes or freezing. There aren't bugs or glitches. It works well.

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

Currently, we have 20 people that use the solution within our organization. We also have three or four admins.

Basically, the solution offers regional support and I'm okay with that. I don't need to worry about not getting the services I need. I've called and got support right away.  I'm quite satisfied with the level of service that is being provided to us.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's straightforward as the product is basically focusing on a pay as you go model.

For our region, Bangladesh, the pricing of the product is too much.

We're a gold partner with Microsoft in Bangladesh.

We're always using the latest version of the solution as Azure constantly updates itself.

I'd recommend the product to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Mostly we've been happy with it, however, we do find the pricing  to be a bit high.

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.

We primarily use Azure for Office 365.

My experience with technical support so far is very good.

If the price were reduced then it would be an improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for one year.

For me and many other people, the general view is that Azure is very stable. We definitely plan to continue using it in the future.

This is a scalable solution and we have thousands of users in our organization.

I have had to contact Microsoft support about a problem that I was having with my virtual machine, where it could not find my VM. When I called them, they solved the problem quite fast.

Prior to Azure, we used all of our Microsoft products on-premises.

The initial setup was easy because we didn't do anything.

We hired an IT consultant who is experienced in setting up cloud solutions. We did not do any of the setup ourselves.

The licensing fees depend on the number of users that we have.

Overall, this product is very good and I can recommend it. It would be difficult to improve.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is Infrastructure as a Service. We use it for SaaS applications, as well.

Azure is very flexible and easy to manage.

The interface and usage are nice.

Previously, there was no IP group, but they have since implemented that and it has become better.

For some use cases, Microsoft Azure is okay and working, but it is lacking features and we cannot implement it fully.

Talking from a networking perspective, when you create a file or a rule in Azure and you want to view this IP group, sometimes the way it is displayed on the GUI, you don't see the name of the group. At a minimum, I should be able to see the name of the group. They need to improve the GUI with respect to creating files or files. In summary, on that GUI view for firewall rules creation, the IP groups that are chosen in the firewall are not easily seen.

If I want to track, for example, a soft IP group, and mistakingly I click the wrong thing, then it's a problem. They need to improve it so that you can just view it, read-only, and then edit it later if needed.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for approximately three years.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten, as they are still developing. 

We have approximately 500 users.

The technical support is very good.

In my own workstream, I've not had cause to work with Microsoft support. However, my teammates from the department have been in contact with them.

The initial setup is straightforward. I can say that because my use case was greenfield, starting out fresh. It was a whole new installation and everything was straightforward.

It took between a month and two to deploy. The installation is not a big deal once you have the necessary license, and then you can begin testing.

This is a product that is fast-growing and they are gaining popularity. We have invested in it, and plan to keep using it for the next five or ten years.

In my opinion, it is an awesome product. Microsoft is everywhere and it predates the cloud. Everything that they have is easy to use.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our whole data center is on this basically. We are UK Export Finance, so we've got financial products there. All of our servers are hosted in Azure.

We are using an Azure subscription. We are on Azure Public Cloud, but we have got our own private subscription.

We've got multiple tools on Azure, which is a very good feature of Azure. Our Palo Alto firewall and other things are hosted in Azure. We're using Sentinel as well, which is a security tool that is being used by our SOC teams.

I've also used AWS, and I find Azure to be more Windows-driven. Although Azure is newer as compared to AWS, it is growing fast. Microsoft is working towards the betterment of Azure.

As compared to AWS, Azure can improve its functionality. In terms of the feature list, it is still lacking a bit as compared to AWS. AWS supports lots of types of operating systems, which Azure is still catching up with. Azure is mainly focused on the Windows system, and it is not yet there in terms of integration with other operating systems like Linux, Unix. Azure is slowly catching up.

I've been working with Azure for the last five years.

Lots of glitches are still there. Microsoft is constantly working to resolve those. It is a new product as compared to AWS, so, obviously, it would have some glitches. Three years ago, it was full of bugs. It is much better and stable now.

It is scalable. We've got around 450 users.

Their technical support is very good. Their response is very good. At the end of the day, we're a business, and their business support is pretty good.

The setup is quite straightforward. It is not at all hard.

We've got a third-party maintenance company that actually maintains our Azure space. 

It is not cheap. Its price could be a little bit less.

It is a cloud solution at the end of the day. People can pick up any cloud solution, but Azure is renowned. Azure and AWS are the main competitors in the cloud market now. AWS comes first, and Azure comes after that. If your solution is predominantly in the Linux space, you should go for AWS. If you are primarily Windows-based, you should go for Azure.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a single point to check all our application metrics from tool to application. 

The solution is very simple to set up.

Right now, in Azure, with the solution they offer, it's a bit complicated. 

The application response time in particular consumes a lot of memory in terms of the CPU and application response time.

The control administration, every single control, every single application or service, has its independent dashboard. It's a bit complex to set up. It's simple to set up, however, when you want a metric for tracking or reporting, it's a bit difficult.

We've had issues with the login feature and have been looking into other solutions due to that ongoing problem.

The solution needs a more integrated password feature.

I've been using the solution for about two years.

The stability isn't that good as compared to AWS. Azure just seems to have more issues in general. It's not the worst, however, it's definitely not the best. We need to make a plan in case the percentage goes down. 

We sometimes have issues with the Azure login. It's been a problem for the last few years. We've also had a data center fail.

The scalability of the solution is good. I personally haven't faced any constraints. Therefore, if a company needs to expand, I don't believe there to be a problem in it doing so.

I'm not sure of how many users are actually using the solution at our organization.

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage or not.

I haven't been in touch with technical support, and therefore can't really speak to their responsiveness or knowledge about the product.

In terms of documentation, we're making our own in-house. We are creating the policies and procedures for how our monitoring should be and we are creating an inventory of which services we have and which metrics each service must have. It's a work in progress.

We're currently looking into different solutions as we've had some issues with Azure over the last few years.

We may have previously used a different solution, however, I might have been new to the company at the time and don't recall what it was.

It's really very straightforward to set up the solution. It's not complex at all. You just need to set up the features your need.

The solution doesn't require too much maintenance.

We usually use the subscription model Azure has. However, that doesn't include monitoring. We're looking at a new budget for that. It would be apart from the main Azure consumption.

However, I don't know the exact pricing. It's not part of the work I do.

We're Azure partners. We have a business relationship with the company.

I'd advise others that Azure is good for monitoring for a small to mid-size organization. For those, it works well. For very complex scenarios, it will be difficult to manage.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. It's much to complicated for larger organizations.

We are a system integrator and Microsoft Azure is one of the products we implement for our clients. We offer a service for DR solutions with it.

The most valuable feature is the instant availability of resources.

The initial setup is quite complex because of the number of options that are available.

Azure is a very stable product.

This is a scalable solution. Our clients are small and medium-sized businesses.

The initial setup is complex because there are a lot of options used to configure it.

I can recommend this solution because of its capability and scalability. In terms of improvements, I cannot think of any specific requests for new features at this time.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.