Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Teams for collaboration with different teams and parties, creating channels for both internal and external communication. In addition, we leverage Power Apps within Microsoft Office to develop workflows and automation tools.

Azure has enhanced our organization's ability to scale applications on demand by providing flexible scalability options tailored to each application's needs. Depending on the application hosted in Azure, we can scale up resources to handle increased requests or scale down during periods of lower demand.

One feature I like in Microsoft Azure is its ability to host and run applications on virtual machines. It is a basic yet crucial capability for our team. 

One area where Microsoft Azure could improve is in offering a broader range of pre-built plugins and tools compared to AWS. While Azure excels in certain capabilities like text-to-voice and voice-to-text, it may lack robust support for handling diverse languages effectively, such as local dialects or combinations of languages like Chinese and English. Enhancing flexibility and language support could make Azure more competitive in diverse global markets like Singapore and the Philippines. Additionally, a feature I would like to see added to Azure in the future is support for a native graph database technology. While AWS offers Neptune for graph databases, Azure currently lacks a similar offering.

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

We have not faced any stability issues with Microsoft Azure.

Microsoft Azure is highly scalable, which makes it easy to adjust resources based on demand. It is mature in terms of scalability and offers seamless scalability features. We have over 200 users utilizing the solution across various teams and departments.

Microsoft's technical support is a bit costly, but it is worth it for the quality assistance they provide. I would rate the support as an eight out of ten.

Generally, the time it takes to deploy and configure a solution in Azure can vary depending on the specific requirements and complexity of the deployment. It could range from a few hours to a few days, but it ultimately depends on factors like the size of the application, the number of resources being deployed, and any custom configurations needed.

We utilize Azure for disaster recovery and business continuity, particularly for our graph database application. While our primary system is hosted on AWS, we have implemented a backup and disaster recovery strategy using Azure. In the event of any disruptions or failures, Azure serves as a reliable fallback, ensuring minimal downtime and data loss.

While we don't create workflows directly in Azure, we benefit from its auto-scaling feature, which adjusts resources based on demand. Plus, Azure integrates well with tools like Control M for workflow automation, making our processes more efficient.

Integrating Azure with other Microsoft solutions like Active Directory and Office 365 is seamless and straightforward, enhancing our business processes. However, we also need to integrate Azure with external systems like Jira and GitLab. While Azure excels in Microsoft product integration, we are exploring ways to streamline integration with non-Microsoft products, which is an area where Microsoft can improve.

For those considering Azure, it is crucial to understand that Microsoft offers a comprehensive ecosystem of products and services. Azure is a top choice for cloud computing needs, especially when already using Microsoft products. It seamlessly integrates with other Microsoft solutions, providing a cohesive experience. So, if you are already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, Azure is worth considering for your cloud computing needs.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure as a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for business analytics, data warehouse, data sharing, and data governance. I am a data engineer. I work on cloud data warehouses and data lakes.

I use Power BI and Azure Synapse Analytics for my analytic needs.

The solution is useful for handling large amounts of data. It is useful for big data. Our analytical needs are taken care of by Azure Synapse Analytics. The scalability is valuable. The data is increasing daily in structured, semi-structured, and unstructured areas. Accommodating multiple data types with a cloud data warehouse and cloud data lake is easy. Azure's security and compliance tools are nice. We get a lot of customers who want to handle data in large volumes.

The third-party data-sharing features must be improved. It will be useful for users who use other cloud providers.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

The tool is stable most of the time. Sometimes, when there is an issue, it takes a long time to resolve. I rate the stability a seven out of ten. The stability must be improved.

When the demand increases during occasions like Black Friday, we have to scale up to meet the customer requirements. Later, we can scale down. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight to nine out of ten. Our clients are mostly enterprise businesses. We normally deal with manufacturing and banking customers.

The customer support is fine. We work with a partner.

Positive

I rate the ease of setup a nine or ten out of ten. We don't require many skill sets to provision it. The time taken for deployment depends upon the environment and the data. Generally, it can be done within hours.

I rate the pricing an eight or nine out of ten. If a customer has Microsoft Stack, they choose Microsoft's products.

Many customers compare Azure Synapse with Snowflake. Snowflake has good capabilities in data-sharing and the marketplace.

We are partners. We pitch Microsoft products to our clients whenever there is a need. I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Our primary use of the platform involves a variety of architecture frameworks, infrastructure, and system needs based on customer requirements. We use it for many AI projects, cognitive services, and infrastructure management.

The solution's most valuable features include scalability, stability, and comprehensive security tools. Its AI capabilities, including generative AI and tools like Azure GitHub Copilot, have been particularly beneficial in optimizing our operations and enhancing critical processes.

There is room for improvement in the product's AI capabilities and real-time data processing features.

I have been using Microsoft Azure since its inception, for nearly 14 years. My experience with Azure began around 2010, shortly after its initial launch.

The product is highly stable. 

The platform's scalability has been vital for effectively managing varying workloads and infrastructure needs. Proper planning is necessary to utilize it and fully avoid potential issues.

Microsoft provides comprehensive support through various channels, which has been instrumental in resolving issues and optimizing our platform use.

I have used various solutions, but Microsoft Azure's comprehensive feature set and integration capabilities made it a preferable choice for our requirements.

The initial setup process can vary in complexity depending on the specific needs and scale of the deployment. We have managed various deployment scenarios, adjusting methods according to customer requirements.

Our in-house team carried out the implementation, which was supported by vendor resources as required.

In countries experiencing high inflation, the cost of Azure services can be significantly impacted. This can result in higher expenses compared to other regions.

We evaluated other cloud platforms, including Oracle, Cisco, and various vendors. However, Azure's robust AI and security features made it the best fit for our requirements.

Microsoft Azure has been a crucial component of our operations, and its continuous improvements in AI and security are promising. Staying updated with Azure’s developments through official announcements and industry news is vital for leveraging its full potential.

I rate it a 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.

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. 

Azure is a cloud provider. We use Azure services for various purposes, including PowerApps for app development and Azure DevOps for software development and operations.

We find Azure particularly beneficial when working with clients who are heavily invested in Microsoft solutions. It necessitates that we also leverage Azure for our solutions and services.

Azure offers a variety of services rather than features per se. 

The platform is quite self-service and adaptable.

It is secure. 

It can be cheaper, which might simplify things a bit.

We've started using Azure for the past year, although we are primarily an AWS shop.

It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

Since it is on the cloud, it is a scalable solution. 

We have a lot of end users using this solution. We use it on a daily basis. 

Since all our solutions are hosted on Azure, usage will naturally increase as our operations expand and we onboard more users.

We were using AWS and had a requirement that led us to start using Azure. We utilize all of them based on specific needs.

We use all three (Azure, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and AWS). It's about the use case and the requirements that dictate which one we choose.

I didn't handle the setup directly. Our IT team manages the provisioning of Azure services for us.

From what I understand, it was not particularly complex.

The implementation was handled by our IT team. We have a dedicated cloud team that provisions the services we request.

The return on investment largely depends on how and where you're using it.

We've seen significant savings in infrastructure costs. That's a primary advantage of using the cloud – it's fully managed, and you pay as you go, which is highly beneficial.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend Azure. When implementing cloud services, it's essential to consider the top three cloud providers today: Azure, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and AWS. 

Azure is stable and should be considered alongside these, depending on the use case.

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.

Azure is utilized to facilitate computing needs for our clients' sites. Most often, it's employed to enable them to host their products in the cloud, manage disaster recovery, conduct backups, and host applications. Additionally, for clients with on-premise infrastructure, Azure serves to replicate that setup in the cloud. We offer Azure-based solutions to fulfill these requirements and seamlessly provide access to them, typically through domain access, after setting up payment arrangements.

Azure integration became crucial for a business facing cost-saving challenges. They were burdened by the physical space and maintenance costs of on-premise infrastructure. Additionally, issues like electricity outages prompted them to consider migrating certain infrastructure components to the cloud. This move aimed to alleviate space constraints, reduce maintenance expenses, and enhance reliability, potentially enabling them to divest part of their infrastructure in the future.

The scalability features of Azure had a significant impact on projects for our customers, particularly in one instance where a deal was lost due to scalability issues. This challenge doesn't necessarily stem from Azure itself but rather from the complexity of migrating third-party dependencies to the Azure environment. Often, the lack of proper documentation and understanding of how these dependencies were originally implemented poses obstacles.

Azure is highly valuable due to its cloud-based nature, which reduces the need for extensive hardware purchases and server maintenance costs. It serves as a quick and convenient solution for spinning up VMs, creating websites, and making businesses visible online. The platform's user-friendliness eliminates the need for lengthy training periods, enabling swift navigation for new users. Companies can easily onboard new personnel by providing them with relevant documents, allowing them to quickly grasp how to manage resources and create necessary components on Azure.

Azure Arc is incredibly valuable because it allows businesses to connect and secure their resources, regardless of where they are hosted. This means that even if they are using other cloud platforms like AWS or have on-premise infrastructure, they can still benefit from Azure's features. With Azure Arc, businesses can have centralized management and security across their entire environment, including legacy systems and other cloud providers. While Azure Arc may come with a higher cost, its ability to bridge different platforms and provide enhanced security makes it a compelling option for businesses looking to leverage Azure services without fully migrating their infrastructure.

Improvements are needed in Azure to enhance integration tools and support for effectively migrating and managing third-party dependencies. Additionally, there is a significant issue with payment restrictions on Azure, particularly for users in regions with limitations in their local economies. Integrating third-party payment services could alleviate this problem, allowing users from various international locations, such as China, Europe, and Africa, to make payments more seamlessly. By providing alternative payment methods beyond the reliance on US debit cards, Microsoft could greatly improve the usability and accessibility of Azure for users worldwide. There's room for improvement in integrating the Azure Marketplace with the Azure portal. It would be beneficial if users could directly communicate with solution owners or developers through the portal. For instance, if a user encounters challenges while using a particular solution from the marketplace, they could easily send an email, initiate a phone call, or even send an SMS to the solution owner or developer for assistance. This direct communication channel would streamline the troubleshooting process and foster better collaboration between users and solution providers, enhancing the overall user experience.

I have been working with it for a year.

Azure is highly stable, with only one instance of downtime experienced on a specific website and two occurrences in approximately nine months. Overall, it maintains a commendable level of stability, especially when availability zones are utilized. These zones provide critical redundancy, ensuring resilience against unforeseen events and offering a heightened level of reliability.

Azure's scalability is evident when building and adhering to the appropriate architectural principles. Challenges with scaling typically arise when existing platforms or third-party components are involved, making it difficult to align them for efficient scaling. However, Azure Arc aims to address this issue, though it may incur additional costs, especially at larger scales. While some customers may opt for traditional VM provisioning on Azure due to cost considerations, Azure Arc offers an alternative approach for scalability.

The technical support provided is exceptional, and I am extremely satisfied with it. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward.

The documentation provided by Azure for deployment processes to our customers is excellent. Typically, the process begins with signing NDAs followed by a call with the customer's team to understand their requirements. Once the requirements are clear, we review the architecture and assess the feasibility of replicating it on Azure, especially if migration is involved. Subsequently, we create a scope of work detailing the proposed actions and timelines, which the customer must sign off on. Upon agreement, we set a kickoff date and discussed requirements from the customer's end, such as authorization and authentication. During the project kickoff, we ensure someone is available on the customer's side to prevent breaches or delays. We then proceed with the deployment, moving necessary components and configurations. After completion, we conduct testing and allow the customer time to review the deployment, typically two to three weeks. Upon receiving approval, we finalize the project and obtain payment, usually within a timeframe of five days to two weeks, depending on the project's complexity

Azure's simplicity streamlines deployment, often requiring only five to six resources for larger projects. The specific roles may vary based on the project's needs, encompassing expertise in security, architecture, design, and product management.

In most cases, we inform the customer that we're available round-the-clock for feedback during the initial three months post-deployment. This ensures prompt resolution of any issues beyond their capability. If needed, we offer training for their team members. Additionally, customers have the option to enter into a support contract with us for ongoing assistance. Smaller projects may not necessitate ongoing management, depending on their setup.

Our customers often report a positive return on investment with Azure, as it helps them save costs. Whether they were previously on traditional infrastructure or on-premises setups, Azure proves to be beneficial, making it a worthwhile investment for them.

The pricing is relatively high.

I highly recommend Azure, as I use it myself. My advice would be for them to seriously consider it, especially when taking their budget into account. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.