Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure to host our applications. It is for the software development department. We also use it to host our internally developed application, ERP, and manufacturing execution applications for our clients. We use the data center in Singapore, as we are based in Malaysia, and our clients access it from the region encompassing Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

We create tenants for each of our clients where we deploy our applications. Clients or users access these applications from their respective tenants. We also train our clients to monitor the resources their tenants consume. This empowers them to adjust resources according to their needs, enabling them to manage these tasks independently.

During the pandemic, some clients faced issues because they were hosting their applications on-premises. The transition to remote work took some time for them. There was no impact on their operations for clients already on Microsoft Azure Cloud.

Clients continued to support Azure because, before the pandemic, they were hesitant about moving entirely to the cloud. They wanted a hybrid of both cloud and on-premises solutions. However, after the pandemic, many eventually migrated fully to the cloud.

We focus on applications hosted on Azure and use the Power Platform. We leverage Azure to set up tenants and dynamics within the platform.

The solution should be more intuitive and provide better support. We often do not receive frequent updates or comprehensive support, even as partners. Additionally, we are exploring the AI functionality within Azure. We are looking to collaborate with Microsoft to activate AI features in Azure to fulfill AI-related tasks requested by our clients.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for more than five years.

The product is stable. We have not encountered any security threats or issues during our five years of using Azure.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

One advantage of using Azure is that clients can start with a low-cost entry in terms of hardware and scale as their business and user base grows. They don't need to allocate a large budget for infrastructure upfront. Additionally, it offers progressive scalability.

Around 200 users are using this solution.

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten.

Customer support is very responsive. They are unable to resolve our issues. When we encounter technical problems and seek assistance, they can help us on a surface level. Many times, you may have to investigate and troubleshoot.

Neutral

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap.

We've been leveraging Microsoft products on the Microsoft platform for the past 20 years. We are dedicated to Microsoft products and platforms.

We no longer need someone to take care of the physical servers on our end. Many server administrations have been drastically reduced.

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

We primarily use email accounts and SharePoint. We want to use AI and OCR services, but we don’t have many use cases.

It is a good solution. I can get all the tools under one roof.

There's a complexity involved in getting the subscriptions provisioned. There are too many complications. Without IT knowledge, we cannot subscribe and work. The product is not user-friendly. All the services must be available in one place so that I can get the services that I need at the right time.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The tool’s stability is good.

The product is scalable. Around 30 people use the solution in our organization. We are trying to get projects from Europe and North America. Once it is done, we'll be scaling up.

The setup is straightforward and easy. Since I know about infrastructure and IT, it took me around one week to set it up. Non-IT people might struggle with the setup.

The return on investment is good. Since everything is in the cloud, we save a lot on infrastructure and server costs. It is very helpful to the client, and it is very useful for us.

I pay for a yearly subscription. Compared to other service providers, the product’s pricing is normal.

I evaluated other options, but I chose Microsoft because it is a little bit easier. We can get it right away.

We are into data management. We deal with data consumption and data validation. So, we must use many virtual and storage solutions to process the data. We use the clients’ solution. I am into IT. I have a bit of knowledge of the infrastructure. If we need to scale up, we might need some training. I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use it for virtual machines, database services, load balancers, and firewall services.

The platform as a service for MySQL and PostgreSQL have significantly improved our operational efficiency. The performance is very good, and it has improved our business performance a lot.

Azure Security and Compliance features:

Azure offers built-in security called Microsoft Defender. This is a paid version that provides posture management for the servers. If there is any setting that needs to be changed or any problem with any network setting that could lead to a disaster, it shows us on the platform that the posture is not correct, and we fix it accordingly. It provides proactive overall management and monitors the entire infrastructure.

AI initiatives:

AI initiatives have been introduced, but we haven't tested it, so we cannot comment on that.

Everything is in the same control panel, and the management is very easy. If there's a new feature, it takes less time to understand the working procedure on the platform. So, it's user-friendly.

I would like to see improvement in the technical support. Sometimes it takes a long time. Only sometimes, not every time. It gets delayed. The response time should be faster.

I have been using it for six years. 

It is a very stable product. We haven't faced any issues with it, and it's been about five or six years.

I find it scalable. Whenever there is a large requirement to increase resources, we can increase them on the fly and decrease them when it's not necessary. It's very easy, and it takes very little time to scale up deployments.

Sometimes there are some problems that need to be taken care of by the Microsoft technical support team. We raise tickets for these cases, which are not solvable by email support. They call us back and resolve the problem.

Neutral

Previously, we used in-house servers. We moved to Azure. As for other solutions, no. There was no other solution. Everything was in-house. We had physical servers, and then we moved to cloud services.

I did not have any challenges or complexities with the initial setup process.

There's a vast knowledge base available. So, there were no challenges. If there's a new deployment, the tutorial is already there. You just have to follow it.

It took a couple of days to complete the migrations.

Maintenance happens at the machine level, not the platform level. There's no maintenance requirement at the platform level.

The initial deployment consisted of about twenty-five virtual machines and five to six services.

We did it in-house.

It has impacted cost savings or business productivity overall. We can easily scale up and scale down the services as per the requirement. 

During some months, the requirement is high. During that time, we scale up the service and scale it down when not necessary. So, it saves a lot of cost for us. The resource cost is not fixed here, and we can scale up and scale down as per the requirement. When we scale it down, the cost gets reduced by a lot.

The pricing is fine. Whenever you deploy a new service or virtual machine, they provide a calculator service that can upfront calculate the tentative cost for the service or resource, monthly or annually. On top of that, the third party through which we have taken the services adds some more discounts.

The recommendation would be to first go through the tutorials, or you have to know the requirement first. As for that, you need to go through the tutorials provided by Microsoft, and then you are good to go.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten because there's always room for improvement.

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.

My organization's entire infrastructure is cloud-based, so everything we have happens in Azure.

The product makes it easy to spin up new environments and develop new technologies.

The product’s flexibility is its best feature. We are not tied to particular machines. We can upgrade servers, downgrade servers, add storage, and take storage away with a flick of a switch. Microsoft constantly adds new features.

I have been using the solution for five years. I am using the latest version.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

We were using a private cloud before.

I rate the ease of setup an eight or nine out of ten. The deployment took about three months.

We used a service provider for the deployment of the solution. They handled most of it. Four in-house people were involved in the deployment.

I rate the pricing a five or six out of ten.

I really like the solution. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

In general, we use Azure for financial services.

Azure helps us take a few things to the market predictably and robustly. It gives us the speed and predictability to build something in a short time. The cost can sometimes be clumsier, but I believe it is similar to other cloud providers. These are the main advantages, but the price is one factor that has really bothered our clients.

Azure's Data Lake services are decent. I like AKS, and API Management is relatively straightforward to use. The security and SIEM options Azure offers are good. All the infrastructure services are easy to use and set up. 

In terms of adoption, one issue we face is providing training for users who are new to Azure and want to try some features out. There are some methods by which the organization has to allot some budget to them, but it has to be apart from the developer endpoints. It's difficult for them to try out something new. It would be nice if Azure had an evaluation period of 30, 60, or 90 days, so people could try out a few things and learn.

That is one challenging area, but this is a problem with all cloud providers, not just Azure. Some free subscriptions are available, but they are for the cloud platform as a whole rather than just a single service. For example, say I don't have a trial subscription, but I want to try something new like Azure AKS for 30 days to learn and to try out. 

It's hard to say what Azure could add. There are a few specific requirements that clients raise based on business needs. In general, I don't think there is any particular feature I can recommend.

I've been using Azure for about four or five years.

Azure has had some issues on and off, but that was a couple of years back, and now it seems okay. Sometimes the performance of the cloud degrades, but there are workarounds. 

We mainly use AKS, which is pretty scalable, so I don't see any issue there. Azure's scalability is relative, so it depends on the client and the solution. Most of our clients are B2B, so they don't have many users. However, we provide a retail banking solution that involves hundreds of transactions per hour. Azure can handle up to a hundred transactions per second can be supported, so I think it's okay.

We talk to Microsoft support often.

Azure setup is pretty straightforward and we mostly handle it in-house. However, it depends upon the complexity of the use case, how we are deploying, and the kind of application we are building. The build and deployment times depend on how we structure our packaging. 

Azure is expensive, but that depends upon who you ask. It probably wouldn't be considered a significant expense for a large corporation, but it's costly for smaller enterprises or startups.

Pricing is one area where Azure has room for improvement. There should be some due consideration. Azure has solved some issues with pricing from the development team's standpoint, but it is still quite costly. They should also offer a trial period for the individual platform solutions. I think that would be pretty handy for the developers.

I rate Azure eight out of 10. I would recommend it. I don't see any challenges from a technology standpoint.

I work with our enterprise architecture. In my network, there are almost 400 total applications. I have been working here for almost six months on a network migration and in those six months, I have been working with many of those applications that have been included with the involvement of Azure in the migration.   

We are migrating everything from the old network to a new architecture. There are multiple teams that I work with and people work with me throughout the organization. I review all the target architectures and the deployment and everything that comes along with the pieces of the migration that involve Azure. Any issues, large or small, I have to look into. These issues might be simple certificate issues or they may involve multiple interfaces that need to be used for a solution.  

Because we have a very complex system, it is not easy to complete the migration. The landscape also has a mixture of different technologies and platforms. If I have to customize, I just get a Terraform script or ARM template from a developer who is assigned to that task. I review all that stuff that they give to me.  

When we went to the version of Azure that we use now, there are certain solutions that we created. If we had trouble, we worked with Microsoft to create that solution for our organization and the problems that needed to be solved.  

We define our own solutions with Microsoft that are not available in the open market. Because of the way we have used Azure, we do not really have a very focused end-product. It is a highly customized product that we have built using many tools.  

Azure is now a mixture of solutions. There are certain applications, which are IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) applications, where we just go and use them. Then there are certain applications that are a mixture of IaaS and PaaS (Platform as a Service). For certain parts, we use private clouds, public clouds, or hybrid clouds. We originally wanted to use more public clouds, but as we proceed, we are moving into more hybrid mechanisms. In the future, I don't know exactly what direction we will take because the technologies and the climate are changing so quickly.  

But right now, we are only using Azure with images being created from the existing architecture. For Azure, we use private cloud, public cloud, and mixed, or hybrid cloud as needed and all of these work together.  

In the future, we may go for some specific function-based services or even open-market APIs. We can use open APIs with Azure. API management is also possible. So there are a lot of permutations and combinations that go with each application based on sizing and NFR (Non-functional Requirements) validation.  

For Microsoft Azure, we use the product itself as a platform, I work mostly with their services. These can be PaaS services or DNS services, monitoring services, storage services — basically all the supporting services that are available to us with Azure. Anything that is not available, we try to build on PaaS. If the services we want are not available, I have to do a complete fabrication.  

So we use mostly PaaS services for most of the supporting services and then we work further in solution optimization, which is something we can accomplish through Azure. Ultimately all that depends on the budget. If a company is ready to spend on a cloud solution, an ROI (Return on Investment) model helps. The amount of customizations and the real need for a solution comes out of the realities of the ROI.  

Our contracts are based on supplying solutions for what the customer needs. If they have selected that a particular application will be available and make this a system mandate which we have to flow, then we have to keep those applications. Azure is one of the tools that we are using to help make these kinds of customizations and to meet their expectations after the migration.  

Azure gives us a different form of PaaS to work with during our migration and helps us to meet multiple requirements that current solutions do not provide in any one product. 

One of the most valuable things about Azure, I think, is that it is pretty straightforward. There are well-defined processes and it is not a bad product to work with. I only work on Azure right now most of the time. I cannot directly compare it with other solutions in the present situation because it is not always practical to consider every solution. Certain platforms on the market are very strong with other services. For example, Kubernetes on RedHat Openhift is better for working with AWS. But I have to ask from a usability, a complexity and a budget standpoint if that is really required.  

If I do my work and my applications are sorted out well in advance, I do not have any issues. From a user perspective — not from a cloud architect or enterprise architect perspective — my requirements are being met. As long as these requirements are met, I do not see anything as a showstopper. If there is a showstopper which I think I absolutely can not solve with Azure and I think another solution would handle, then possibly we may go into a multi-cloud scenario.  

That is also a limitation for our organization. The goal is never to seek complexity. Personally, I think there is no direct comparison between what solution is better and what solution is worse. There are only solutions that work or are capable of doing something and those solutions which can not do it, or were not designed to do it, or do not want their product to do it, et cetera.  

Part of my place in working with these solutions as part of my process is working with products I am comfortable with. So the more that I use Azure, the more comfortable I get with what it can do as a solution, and the more comfortable I am using it. If I started using AWS more, I would get more comfortable with AWS and maybe incorporate that more heavily in the solutions.  

There are some small things that could be done to improve Azure. I think they should actually do more to implement function as a service. It is a completely separate capability that they currently do not address. Function as a service can be a completely different scheme altogether than PaaS or IaaS which it does quite well.  

For an example of a FaaS, I think the Azure product can be stronger in terms of storage. I would like to see it have better management systems as a service specifically for managing documents. Right now they are handled as a more generalized object.  

Say Azure came out with Microsoft Document Management and it was very strong as a service. It would not have to be deployed as a complete infrastructure. I would be able to use that as a service inside my organization and it is a product that any organization can use.  

The question is what is the separate USP (Unique Selling Point) that Microsoft will provide to the user that would fit a unique need when making FaaS solutions available. Document management systems have already been proven to be very popular by Google. Microsoft Office uses OneDrive storage. There may be a better way to promote document management in a more general PaaS. Sometimes it is very useful to virtualize a platform or an infrastructure, but in the same way, it is sometimes valuable to virtualize a function. Applications may be a collection of functions.  

It is this type of branching out of services that Azure can do within the structure they already have.  

They are targeting Azure into specific domains and not working as much with open-source as they could. That would be helpful. I think eventually this approach will just drive the competition away. If I have a product that is very good for manufacturing as a function — something like is being done with Edge — it might be beneficial for Azure to be able to tie in this FaaS and let manufacturing clients start working with the solution without having to reach outside of Azure. Right now that I do not see that happening and it is an opportunity that Microsoft is missing with Azure.  

I am responsible for designing our migration, so I have to work with Azure to define the parts of that solution. I had previously been using AWS mostly for personal services so I was familiar with PaaS platforms, but I have now also been using Azure exclusively for the last six months to supplement the functionality we require.  

The product is stable. There are a few qualifications attached to that.  

I think the stability of Azure varies depending on the workloads. It is more stable from the perspective of how it behaves in a mid-size deployment. For a very, very large implementation, I have yet to see that same kind of inherent stability. I believe it is because of the complexity of the client's system or architecture.  

You may be able to say that if it is more of a Microsoft product landscape, then possibly it is more stable in general. The more that there is a mixture of technologies, then it will tend to be less stable. No application can be stable in every circumstance.  

As the project I am engaged in is very large, we have experienced some episodes of instability. We solve the stability problems as we go along to a great extent. But I think there are a lot of situations that have to be dealt with in real-time. Though we have direct contact with a Microsoft team architect, it is difficult for them at times to just jump in and solve an issue. You can not usually solve a problem instantly looking down at it from 55,000 feet when the situation on the ground is very, very complex.  

At first, they only have generalized solutions to your problem. I think they need an extension of the existing team. This would be like a core team to work with client organizations to do case studies to define patterns in what is causing instabilities.  

Because Azure is cloud technology and cloud comes with its own problems, these bleed over into Azure stability. All these patterns that contribute to instability have to come out in order to be solved. As Microsoft collects more case studies and more knowledge of where these problems tend to occur, this should enable them to stabilize the product against those issues.  

Overall, I would say Microsoft Azure is a stable solution, but even as a stable solution, it usually has some bugs or glitches.  

As of today, we have almost 1,000 people using the solution. We have a very big migration project that will last for the next four to five years before it is completed. They have many applications and many users for those applications. If the volume of users or applications were to scale, that should not be a problem.  

I do not really have much direct contact with the Azure or Microsoft support teams. We have a separate team for that. I have a great architect that I work with here (Sweeden). But if an issue comes up, the application team goes to work on it to support the resolution. It is their option to contact Azure to raise that issue or resolve it themselves.  

I was using AWS before Azure, but I was using it mostly for my own personal needs. I was deploying my own applications. I used it for about two years but not from a company perspective. I deployed my own applications in the public cloud and loaded them there for use at a personal level.  

In the company right now, I am only using Microsoft Azure. The company itself is using everything, really. At this point, my experience in the company is specialization as the person who is helping to utilize Azure.  

The initial setup was simple and it is simple for a simple application. If I want to build with a simple application, I simply go do that. But if I have a very heavy interface-based application, then the choices become more difficult and involved.  

If I have a WebSphere application, that is easy. A complex platform or a complex interface dependence becomes difficult to implement because of restrictions. If I can not simply go and deploy as it is, obviously it is more complex to deploy in the system.  

For a small company with a typical landscape of Microsoft technology, it becomes very easy to work with Azure. It is possible to go through that setup by yourself and test your servers and the entire functionality. 

After deployment, you will require maintenance. We can not simply have a production list and push everything out. You need pre-production, testing, and then deployment. All that has to be done on Azure.  

There are a lot of things you will have to work out with security certificates. Meanwhile, things keep on changing in the product itself. New upgrades keep on rolling out. If the old version does not support the new upgrade, then you will need to get involved with patching and other upgrades to take care of the issues that are introduced.  

We have a dedicated team for maintenance. We know we need to do testing and that is why we created tasks for that. But, generally, I think complexities in the setup depend upon what applications you are building. Simple applications and simple systems make for simple deployment.  

We are working with the vendor directly. We also have contacts with Microsoft. Microsoft directly provides us all the tools and information we need for implementations.  

The pricing of Azure depends on the build of what you prepare. You can optimize everything, and with Azure, you can optimize your utility and costs. For example, say you create a subscription and you want to do more backups and you want a private cloud for that. This will affect your cost differently than if you do not add the backups with Azure or if you add the services with a public or hybrid cloud.  

We have very good, large contracts with big organizations. We do very high-level analytics and modeling to predict outcomes. For example, we may show that a certain solution that we implement with Azure will be likely to reduce a company's cost from the current level to 50% over the next five years. That, to me, is important when considering the cost of a subscription. It is not just the cost perspective that is important, but the ROI as well.  

I would definitely recommend Azure as a solution because it is a popular product by a major brand and it is very easy to use. I think those people I would recommend it to should normally be those who understand the cloud and the advantages and disadvantages. I use it for a lot of things and I do not see any problems. I love it now as a solution so I would recommend it. But if I have a different experience with another very large migration project using a different product, I would have to compare Azure with that. I may get more comfortable with the other product for reasons I have not discovered yet.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Microsoft Azure as a seven-out-of-ten. It is a good product and I love using it but it could do even more and has a lot of possibilities to grow as part of a relatively new technology. The future is more open than closed to the possibilities.  

I am using Microsoft Azure primarily for application development purposes. Additionally, I am utilizing it for machine learning and Internet of Things.

Microsoft Azure has made it easier for me to use and format my applications effectively.

The most valuable feature is the broad range of services offered by Microsoft Azure, such as computing, networking, and Azure Arc, along with security and compliance. 

Additionally, it has made my applications easier to use and has improved the development process.

There is room for improvement in the pricing structure, user interface design (UI/UX), clear navigation, and documentation support of Microsoft Azure.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for about three years.

I would rate the stability of Microsoft Azure at eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure at eight out of ten.

I am very satisfied with the technical support and would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

I did not use a different solution before Microsoft Azure.

The initial setup was a bit complex yet became easier as I learned more about it.

I would rate the pricing of Microsoft Azure at eight out of ten, which makes it on the pricier side for me.

I have already recommended Microsoft Azure to my colleagues, and they are finding it useful. 

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