Microsoft Azure Reviews

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 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.

Positive

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.