Microsoft Azure Reviews

I know Azure. We have the tools for optimized Azure infrastructure. As a partner, as an active integrator, I am looking only for plays to make the deal. I am not an end user, prospector or client. I use it in my projects but I am not buying any solution from Microsoft for ourselves. I am the seller.

When I talk about the Infrastructure as a Service from the Microsoft, I am referring to a hybrid infrastructure. We are talking about the moving of virtual machines and workload from on-premise system to the Cloud. This is my main topic when we are talking with the client. My technical team worries about the details of how we do this. I am not so good in the technical details.

In terms of our customers' use cases, in our last project, the customers migrated the SAP system from on-premise to the Azure with SQL as a database. We helped the customer to compare on-premise infrastructures and Infrastructure as a Service in Azure, and to help them migrate the machines, the tech, and the servers from on-premise to the Cloud and to have the tools from the Quest to help them optimize because they did not want to pay so much. They only wanted to pay by use. We are looking for the perfect tier from Azure to finish the project. This was our job. That's why I like the Azure.

There is not too much perfect information out there about how to optimize the infrastructure. Microsoft is looking for the bills where the sky is the limit but the customer is looking for the real cost. We help the customer and we have the answers regarding which tier or which configuration in Azure is proper for them.

Microsoft Azure is so complicated inside. If you should do something internally, if you have to configure something, the opinion about Azure is that it is a little complicated inside. That's why the end users and clients are looking for help and why we help them configure and do anything inside of Azure. That is why we offer other tools to optimize the Azure environment.

Microsoft makes the space for such tools because it is a little complicated and end users know it. That's why we sell these tools to optimize the Azure. I think the Microsoft team knows this and they create the space for other third party partners.

I know all the points about how the Cloud is so beautiful but if somebody starts to do something inside the Azure, it is a little hard to understand. Many services are so complicated to configure out. That's why sometimes clients are obviously confused inside the Azure. That's why they are looking for help with it and why they are looking for a Microsoft partner with the knowledge of how to connect this software into one solution. From my perspective, I like Azure because it makes me money from the end user clients. But for the customers, their opinion is, "Oh, my god. The AWS is easy."

It is well-known that Microsoft is not so easy for the end users. Maybe it's because there is a note of everything changing. They add new features and new functionalities. Azure is growing. From my point of view it's okay. From the customers, it's also ok, but they are looking for someone who understands how to configure it.

From the beginning, the first move to Azure as a solution, it's a long journey with many, many services to find the final configuration for the customer. But it's okay for me.

In terms of scalability, it is perfect. If you are a rich partner or a rich company and you have a lot of money on your credit card, the scalability and the possibility of using Azure is a perfect play. If you want two servers, if you want 200 servers, it's one click. From the marketing point of view, it's the perfect place to spend the money. I think the customers are really worried about the cost. If you request a lot of machines, it's only one click in the setup but the bill for that is so huge. They ultimately worry about how to prepare their production environment just for us. Not for the sky is the limit but for our requirements to help. We have tools for monitoring consumption of the Azure and we can switch virtual machines off when at the end of the day. Customers are happy that we offer that because they are a little worried.

For example, if you buy one huge service for your on-premise project, you pay for that one service. But if you put a development team on the project and they request a lot of virtual machines because it's so easy to deploy, someone should pay for that. This is literally one big worry from the client side.

The calculator from Microsoft for Azure is very basic. This tool only shows what you consumed and what you will pay. There is no answer if you want to know how big a credit card you need to run the project. We make money answering exactly how much you really need for your project. We save the budget for the customer. We find opportunities for Microsoft but when the customer is worried, we help them. It's also good for Microsoft because they run the project.

We have support but Microsoft is trying to cover only Azure as an infrastructure.

They are not interested in talking about current applications or current systems from a customer perspective. This is the job for the partner. Microsoft covers only the chief environment. The job for the partner is caring about the customer's real needs. That's our job.

We only have experience with AWS because for us it doesn't matter whether we run virtual machines on AWS or Azure. If the client is only looking for power servers, then the machine they are looking for is AWS. If they are not only looking for IaaS, Infrastructure as a Service, but are also looking for the DaaS or Database as a Service, they are looking for Azure. It is exactly the same way for customers that are using SQL Server. The first choice is Azure.

If you are looking for Oracle, they're thinking about AWS. Of course, if we are talking about the containerization, about the Kubernetes, AWS is also the first choice for our clients.

The initial setup depends on the project. Because we are the Microsoft partner and we have some money for our internal tests we do the setup part. We use Azure infrastructure for our demo when we show our virtual demo machine. For my colleagues, it's not so complicated but we are using only a very small part of Azure.

When we talk about the real project, it is not so easy. We are using a very basic functionality, but I know from the other projects that it is not so easy to implement, run, test, et cetera because it's always a little complicated. Maybe it's okay. It depends on the current customer's needs.

ROI is a very tough topic because with the first step, every customer is trying to compare what they pay on the infrastructure and what they will pay in Azure. This is never the same number.

The challenge is to show to customers the added value because Azure is not only a different type of data center, but is also a place where you can make the innovations and add some new services. It is much easier than on-premise. We have a lot of ready-to-use functionalities on Azure, but the magic is how to use it.

Sometimes, the customer does not have the knowledge to create new value for the business using the ready-to-use functionality on Azure from the Microsoft offer. This is the challenge.

Moving the one virtual machine is easy but knowing how to run your business application for the customer, this is the main challenge.

My advice to anyone considering Azure is if they want to make jumping to the Azure or to the Cloud easier, they should focus on and discuss what the steps are. When you are on premise, figure out the development and how to configure it to the Azure. I have had so many marketing presentations from Microsoft saying, "Oh, it's easy. You have the Advisor. Blah, blah, blah." This is pure marketing. The clients know it is only a commercial about Azure. If Microsoft wants to really get customers, they should help them step by step by showing them how it is easy and how to control every step of the project. They should care more about the customers during this type of project. If you did 10 project delegations, the next one is much easier, but the first is really not so easy. That's why customers are afraid about migrating to the Azure. "What about the bills? What about how to administrate? How long to build the infrastructure?" There are a lot of questions from the customer side.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a seven. That is because there is always space for improvement. For me it's okay. It's reliable and it really works.

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.

We use the product for Exchange, Microsoft Intune, SharePoint, and OneDrive.

The solution is secure and easy to use. It meets the security guidelines. It is approved by the state and the shareholders. MFA is a good feature. The reporting features are also good. The management and the logging of incidents are good. It’s a good solution for our use cases. I don't have any negative opinions about it.

Sometimes, I need better support. Microsoft must acknowledge support cases for the product. There have been some data leak issues lately. The support team is not responding to my emails. I had a call with an engineer on a weekend, and he told me he would follow up on Monday, but he hasn’t shown up yet.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

The tool is 99.99% stable.

The tool is scalable. We have 50 to 100 employees. We're a startup, but we are growing.

Overall, the support team is good.

Neutral

The tool was easy to install. The maintenance is fairly easy. When I have issues, I contact Microsoft, and the team helps me.

The tool is cheap.

We are not allowed to store data in Azure. Our data is encrypted via third-party software. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use Microsoft Azure for many different services. For example, we use the Azure Boards for work and issue tracking. The Azure Repos is a place we store code, it is similar to a Git repository for us. Microsoft Azure has pipelines for the deployment of your applications across environments. There are different cloud services for different use cases in Microsoft Azure that I interact with on a daily basis.

Microsoft Azure has benefited our organization mostly because we moved all our infrastructure to the cloud. That has helped with cost optimization. We don't have to worry about operational maintenance for things such as patching or updates for any of the servers because everything is handled by the cloud itself. We are always using the latest version.

Microsoft Azure has hundred of services that they offer on the platform.

The Microsoft Azure platform in itself is very good. The documentation that is available I find very handy and the community behind it is helpful. If you have any problems or anything, you can easily reach Microsoft's community, and then there would be someone who would be willing to help. That's a very good plus point for Microsoft Azure.

There are times when using a service in Microsoft Azure can be confusing because you have four or five options that do similar operations. It would be helpful if there was a clear decision tree around those features. Microsoft does provide a lot of decision trees around a lot of their services, but it's not for everything.

This would be helpful for the users because sometimes it gets confusing what to use, what not to use. Then you start with something, and then after two months, you think you should have used something else. There are approximately 200 services and I have found this issue with approximately 10 of them.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately seven years.

Microsoft Azure is stable, I did not encounter any issues or anything in the platform. The uptime is very good. 

When you design your solution, you can make sure that everything is accounted for in your design, such as all the options are there. Microsoft Azure in itself is rarely down. If there is a complete blackout it can happen, but normally no. It's very reliable.

The scalability of Microsoft Azure is unlimited. You never have to be concerned with scalability. You only have to pay for it and then the scaling is available for you.

I have approximately 50 to 100 people using this solution in my organization. I use the solution on a daily basis.

I have not needed to contact the technical to Microsoft in my current experience. In the past, I have contacted Microsoft once or twice, but the process is straightforward. You raise a ticket, and then Microsoft's people reach out to you.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure is very straightforward. You don't have to do any setup. You only have to sign up on the Microsoft Portal, and then you can start using it.

I did the implementation of Microsoft Azure myself.

There is not any maintenance required for this solution. If we build any solution on top of Microsoft Azure, then that's something that we have to take care of and maintain. The Microsoft Azure platform in itself does not need any maintenance from us.

Microsoft Azure is not expensive. You pay for what you use. If you are using it everything could be expensive.

We choose Microsoft Azure after doing the proper comparisons and proof of concepts. We did a complete pros and cons list for our vendor selection process.

I would highly recommend Microsoft Azure to others.

I would advise others that one of the most important points to make is to make sure that the security and governance of the platform have been thought of before you start building everything around it. Make sure you build your security framework and the governance framework around the platform that suits your company. Every company is different. Everyone will have different security and governance rules.

I rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for single sign-on authentication.

We like that you sign in only once and that grants access to all of the Microsft applications, as well as others such as ServiceNow and SAP Concur.

Ease of use could be improved. You wouldn't just be able to use this solution without being trained on it.

We have Microsoft Azure for approximately five years.

We are always updating Microsoft.

It's been pretty stable. There have only been one or two instances where Microsoft went down. One time, it was the building's main operations center that was struck by lightning and caught on fire.

We have 20,000 users in our organization who are using this solution.

As we acquire other companies, we will increase the usage.

Technical support needs improvement. If you are able to get a rep then it's great. If not, you are left hanging.

Previously, we used Okta.

We switched over because we got the Enterprise package with Microsoft Suite.

The initial setup was completed by our internal Microsoft team.

Microsoft Azure definitely provides us with a return on investment.

Licensing costs for Enterprise are on an annual basis. In addition, we pay to have Gartner help us negotiate.

It is best to have a dedicated team because it is not easy to use and get set up or to get acclimatized in the amount of training that you need to become familiar with the solution.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

The performance of Azure DevOps services is really impressive. It really demonstrates the value of the service. 

We've had a good experience with their technical support. They are always available when needed.

I haven't been involved with continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) services, but I hope there will be more training sessions for them. Other companies and platforms provide technical webinars and training on their websites. 

I wish I could learn more about CI/CD, but the resources aren't readily available. I haven't been able to find webinars or training sessions. Maybe I'm not searching correctly, or the information isn't presented clearly.

The price should be lower. My company used the demo product because of the cost. Price is an important point for all clients and companies who want to obtain this solution.

I also have a question: what about review platforms for forensic technology? Is there a way to integrate these platforms with Azure? It would be great to have a web-based review platform integrated with Azure. Currently, we use a third-party software to launch this review platform.  Is there any way to review documents within a web-based solution in Azure? This is something I wonder about.

I've used Azure for a year and a half, specifically for DevOps services. Unfortunately, I worked with a demo product, as the company couldn't purchase the actual product. I mainly used Azure DevOps repos and some basic concepts like Azure state plans.

Azure solutions are stable. Many companies find clients who want the solutions because of the stability and high performance.

It's a good solution for small or medium-sized businesses.

The setup is very straightforward. The Azure services and platform for storage are easy to understand, with clear steps. It's easy for any user to install services on the platform.

I haven't had any issues with integrating Azure services. We use the integration services with Azure with a very intuitive UI. So, I didn't face any issues while integrating Azure services.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. There are a lot of benefits. The integration options for all services are great.

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

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

The solution must improve its pricing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is one of the best tools in the market. It's a very good cloud service. It has a lot of good security options. The reporting options are also good. The on-premise AD is fantastic. The tool gives us flexibility in deployment. If we get the design wrong, that's not Azure’s problem. It's our problem. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.