Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure for task management. 

The product is a cloud solution. 

Microsoft Azure needs to improve its user interface. New developers and teams have difficulty understanding its lifecycle. 

I have been working with the product for 12 years. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

Microsoft Azure is very scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten. My company has 15 users. 

Microsoft's tech support is awful. 

I used Jira before Microsoft Azure. 

I rate the product's deployment an eight out of ten. It can be completed in a few hours. 

Our DevOps engineers manage the installation. 

It's a positive experience for every development team to use Microsoft Azure, especially when working with Microsoft products. However, if working with open-source solutions like PHP or Google programming languages, opting for other cloud solutions such as Google Cloud or AWS is recommended. These platforms are considered more suitable for open-source solutions compared to Microsoft Azure. I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We are vendors. We are neutral from the technologies. We provide solutions to our clients as well as implement the customer needs with the different technologies.

We have a multi-channel mobile app solution that we implement, and we have an API deployed on Azure cloud. We use API management in the Azure cloud.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of use.

The Azure APIs is monetization. Its support, monetization for prepaid and postpaid are good features that we look for.

I would like to see this solution support integration.

We have been selling Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

We are implementing the latest version.

Microsoft Azure is stable.

It's a scalable solution. We have approximately 1,000 users who are using this solution.

Technical support is awesome! It's very good.

We have installed many competitive products, such as Appigee and IBM, but Microsoft Azure is the easiest one to install.

While I was not a part of the deployment, I know it took them less than a week.

We have a team of 10 to 15 for the deployment, customization, and implementation of this solution.

For anyone who is interested in using this solution, I would recommend it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

Azure cloud is a platform for many things, such as hosting, file services, application or power apps, and data lake. All these things are a part of Microsoft Azure. We're using it as a full suite. We are a big tenant with all solutions for Microsoft. We are using the latest version of Microsoft Azure.

The redundancy across different regions is the most valuable. It provides a big value for cloud services, especially for Microsoft.

The level of authorization or authorization cascading can be improved. We have the most powerful admins and then we have sub-admins, but the level of authorization is not that easy to handle or manage.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three years. I am using this solution on a daily basis. It is the main platform that we have.

Its stability is good. It is very stable.

It is very easy to scale. We have more than 7,000 users. 

They are pretty sufficient. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

We also have different cloud vendors like Amazon and Salesforce, but they all are for different purposes, so it depends on the service.

The initial setup was simple. It was done in stages. 

We had the full support and dedication from Microsoft for its installation. Its maintenance is done by a vendor, and we also have some technical support from Microsoft when we are doing this stuff.

Microsoft always provides the entry-level solution with a cheap license. Once you start to like the product, then you have to pay for the full package, which is more expensive than the entry-level solution. Every feature comes with a license and a cost. Some licenses have multiple features, and some features require a specific license.

I would advise starting directly with Microsoft and then asking the vendors to recommend the trusted partners to work on the implementation or migration, and not vice versa. First, talk with the architect of the design and see if they can recommend a trusted partner who can do the implementation.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten. It is a big product and platform. It covers many things in terms of features.

Microsoft Azure is our principal could environment.

We use Microsoft Azure for Hosting Apps, Sites, and Blogs.

Advantages of Azure over On-Premises: Improved Performance and Cost Benefits.

It is easy to deploy.

The technical support is good.

The price is good.

I would like to see Internet content filtering included.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for two years.

I am working with the latest version.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

I have plans to increase my usage in the future.

Technical support is good.

I would rate them a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is easy to deploy.

We have seen a return on investment.

The pricing is reasonable.

I Conducted Evaluations of Google Cloud (GCP), Oracle Cloud (OCP), and Amazon Web Services (AWS).

We opted for Azure based on familiarity and expertise as a Microsoft-driven organization.

It's a good product and the correct choice.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

I am a manager of a team and we will have approximately 18 applications that will be cloud-based using this solution.

One of the most valuable features of Microsoft Azure is the compatibility with all of our Windows applications and other Microsoft technologies.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately one year.

The solution could improve the stability. However, this could be a configuration issue that we are not been trained.

There is good community support available.

I have previously used AWS and GCP.

Microsoft Azure is more expensive than other solutions, such as GCP. We have found that GCP offers more utilities at a very reasonable price. I think the reason we are having a discount is because of the bank contract we have.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure a seven out of ten.

The existing infrastructure of our customers is on-prem. We will be migrating or moving from on-prem to Microsoft Azure cloud.

We don't have to spend money to purchase the hardware, set up a data center, get people to work on it, and maintain security. We don't have to spend any money on these things. It is ready to use, and resources are available for us. We just create an account on Azure and start using the services. 

The time to market is very fast. We just supply the resources, virtual machines, and databases, and our applications are up and running. This helps our customers and us to be more future-ready and cloud-ready.

Its scalability is valuable. Depending on our requirements, we can add as many virtual machines as we want. We are able to get high availability for services. Services are always available, and they have the maximum uptime. If there is any issue with one of the services, another service is always available. 

It is pay-as-you-go. You don't have to spend any money upfront. You use the service and pay after one month or a couple of hours of use.

For deploying multiple resources in a big number, such as in hundreds, we need a streamlined process and more user-friendly scrips. The scripts have to be more user-friendly, and they should also supply some standard templates to deploy multiple resources at a time. Currently, it is very easy to deploy a couple of resources, but if you want to deploy multiple resources, it becomes complex.

The material that they provide for integration with an existing on-prem data center is complex. They have to make them user-friendly. The scripts related to resource management need to be simplified.

I have been using this solution for one year. In our company, we have been using it for four to five years.

It has a very high uptime for services. They are able to provide as per Service Level Agreement (SLA). We are not seeing any downtime for our applications. Our users have not reported any issues. 

They have their internal redundancy for hardware and software. If there is an issue with any hardware, another hardware is ready to take the load.

It is very scalable. We can add as many virtual machines as we want. We have 400 to 500 people who are using this solution.

I have not worked with support. We work in a design team where we have a dedicated Microsoft account partner to provide support. That support is fine. If there is an issue with running virtual machines or there are any infrastructure issues, another team takes care of that. I've not got any complaints from them that their support is not working.

Previously, we had the regular on-prem solution with our own data center. We had to deploy physical servers, networks, databases, and everything else. We needed flexibility and scalability for our customers and applications, and that's why we moved to the cloud.

The initial setup was easy. 

It is operational expenditure (OPEX). There is no cost upfront. When you start using it, you have to pay the charges. Initially, the cost is less, but after you start using it more and more, the cost will go higher. It is a little bit costly, but that is okay because you get better resources. You also get better support in terms of how you create the resources. Documentation is available, and the SLAs are met. 

Companies are now starting to switch over to Azure, and before doing any kind of migration, they need to plan each and everything from scratch. They should have a Microsoft consultant or somebody from Microsoft so that they can plan well before using Azure. Otherwise, they will not be aware of where they are spending and how they can reduce the spending. They would also not know whether their security compliances are being met and whether their network is being fully utilized or having some issues. Proper planning has to be done before using Azure. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We use Azure as an infrastructure service. Most of our customers have web servers but we also manage Azure for SAP R/3. It works fine. They do have a lot of options for SAP All-In-One, but we don't have as many options for SAP Business One. What Azure offers for Business One customers is too short to have enough servers certified. It works fine but it's not a complete solution for customers that use SAP Business One.

Azure has improved my organization because it is a new technology and so the customers who don't have enough knowledge about the cloud delegate the administration of their cloud infrastructure to us. We incorporate and add a new service to our product lineup about how to manage their Azure. It impacts our business because we're able to incorporate this new service.

The Pricing Calculator would be the most valuable feature. It's easy to use. 

I would like to have more certified servers for SAP. Our customers need an easier interface to manage Azure. They don't have people who have cloud knowledge. The knowledge group is taking time and they use our services to manage the cloud data. Azure is built for auto services but it's not easy. The interface is not easy to use. I'd like to see them develop a better interface and more graphical information about the resource and the consumer.

There's a machine, the server. The smallest machine that they have has 112 GB of RAM. It is big for a customer. It has around 16 cores and a 112 GB of RAM. Amazon has a server with around 8 cores and 60 GB of RAM. The smallest certified machine for SAP Business One HANA in Amazon Web Services is 8 cores and 60 GB of RAM and Microsoft it's 16 and 112 GB of RAM. It's too big for a small customer. Because this machine is able to manage 50 concurrent users it's too big for a customer with 22 or 30 users. 

Until now I have only had a few problems with stability. There was a problem with Azure Active Directory in the US central region that affected almost all of the data centers around two or three months ago but otherwise, it's good stability. The stability is good enough.

Scalability is fine. We tried to create services in the data center in Brazil and there was not enough space. There were not enough cores and RAM so we were not able to create it. We opened a ticket with technical service and they told to use another region.

We chose Azure because of its scalability. With Azure, we are able to use the size of a machine that we need.

I haven't opened any tickets with technical support. The technical team opened most tickets but from what I hear, technical support has been fine. It could be better. They could improve the time it takes to respond but I have never heard about any issues from the technical guys about their support. They would prefer to get a faster response back because when you have a problem, you have your boss asking for updates so you need a fast answer.

It's a very expensive machine and I would like for them to improve the price. There are smaller sized competitors who offer cheaper prices. 

We didn't look at any other options because we are not business partners with other cloud solutions or providers. We only have Azure so we try to solve everything with Azure. If a customer asks us for a proposal to move or create some interesting tool in the cloud, we all use Azure. We never compared it to other cloud providers.

I would rate this solution a nine because they are always incorporating new alerts and new features. I wouldn't give it a ten because it's sometimes not easy to use and the price is not a fair price for the solution.

I don't know why customers think that Amazon is the best. I think that the customer thinks that the best option for cloud is an Amazon service and the second one is Microsoft. My advice to someone considering this or a similar solution is to be careful with Amazon because the customers think that they are always on the list.

• Resource manager
• API
• Cloud storage
• Virtual machine hosting

Our company plans to use Azure for training and for internal use. We use ADFS and the cloud storage mostly. We are also moving to host labs in Azure to offload demand from our datacenter, when additional hosting capacity is required without notice.

The system has some limitations on resource use, such as number of cores, max transactions, I/O, maximum number of VMs etc. These limits make some things very difficult, and could be improved. Also Azure is constantly undergoing changes, and the move to Azure API v2 offers a lot of improvement, but is still rather unfinished. Once it is complete it will be great, but in the meantime there is much room for improvement. Microsoft is constantly looking for ways to improve, so many of the improvements I can think of, they are already working on.

A little over one year

There were some issues with development and the resource limitations. We also ran into a problem with networking. Network changes over the API are synchronous, and only one change can occur at any given time, locking the subscriptions networking config until the last operation completed. This was resolved in the V2 API. Most of the problems we ran into with V1 are resolved and simplified in V2.

There have been few problems with stability. Only a couple times there were outages that only impacted our development environment. Notice of these service interruptions are generally given with plenty of time to prepare.

There are limits as to how much resources you can use in Azure (as with all cloud platforms). This can be a problem if you plan to host hundreds of virtual machines with an hours’ notice. They have a process that requires a customer to go through tech support, and request/justify the need for a resource increase. If you need more than 20 networks, you will need to open a new subscription, and move resources to that subscription. They simply will not budge on some limit increases, and will on others. Currently opening up a new subscription is the solution to the resource limit problem. Azure is not really intended to handle our level of churn (creation and deletion of hundreds of VMs per minute), but we have been able to work with them and work around the problems we ran into.

The level of customer service is generally very good. They are quick to respond and resolve the problem quickly. I have had a couple of issues where the technical support staff didn’t interpret the problem correctly and moved a severe issue down from a two hour response time to a 24 hour response time. I quickly responded and told them that it was impacting ongoing business, and they moved the ticket back up, and resolved it within the two hour timespan. All other interaction with customer service has been outstanding. After a co-worker posted on Twitter making a remark about the UI, we received a call from customer service. They setup a meeting with us to discuss what problems we ran into with the new UI, and they asked us for input on what their developers could do to improve our experience. They were taking a proactive approach to customer service, not waiting for a problem to come to them, but sought out those with problems and resolved them.

I would rate their support at 8/10. A ten being perfect support without ever running into a problem, one being at a very poor level of customer support. I consider a rating of 8 to be a high rating. I should also add that the only support I have received has been for free, this only includes sales related issues and limit increases. I don’t have experience with their paid technical support which I would expect to be much better. They will charge for support even if you are a paying customer, so a rating of 8/10 reflects the support fees as well.

In the past, we used our own solution. We have datacenters where we host our in house solutions. We didn’t completely switch to Azure, but did offload some things to free up hardware for other purposes. We also want to offload hosting to Azure in times of high demand.

The setup for us is quite complex because we need to integrate it into a custom solution. The setup includes development time and changes to our core systems. This is not an easy task, but it's not at the fault of Azure or any other cloud service provider. The API has a learning curve, but anyone familiar with cloud services, and the use of a remote API should have no problem learning and implementing their system.

We implemented our solution in house. Most Azure integration is done by me. Azure is simple enough that interfacing your system with Azure can be done by a single person.

As for time to ROI I am not sure, these details are determined by upper management. The main components for the return is the idea that we will not only be able to offer a new set of training material for Azure specific material as a new product, but we can also avoid purchasing expensive equipment to satisfy a short term need for hardware and resources. Long term needs are hosted in house on our equipment. Even with the high cost of Azure hosting, purchasing additional equipment for a temporary need can result in a large amount of unnecessary costs.

Our setup costs are the costs of development time to integrate our system with Azure. Because the project is ongoing, this is difficult to determine. The cost for subscriptions in development is about $150 a month. Our MSDN subscription includes a credit which takes care of this cost. In production we forward the costs of events to the customer who is hosting the event. I don’t get the exact details on the day to day operation costs for internal subscriptions.

We evaluated the Google Cloud and AWS. All have a varying range of features and paradigms. Some appear to be cheaper, but when you add up the costs and read the fine print, you find that this may not be the case. We do plan to offer services on other platforms as well, but that is a different project. I have done research on all platforms to make sure the core system is compatible with all others. Azure is so far my favourite. The support is great, and the pricing is easy to work out. Other options had a lot of fine print and stipulations. Also the API is very easy to use, with plenty of references on MSDN.

Overall, it is a great, solution but is a bit expensive, has some minor limitations, and working around these limits can be a challenge. I still gave Azure a high score because of the support, feature set, availability, and the tools and documentation provided for the API.

My advice is to be very clear on the costs associated with what you plan to do. Most people will ask how much it costs to host their infrastructure in Azure, but that question is different for each scenario. Microsoft has an Azure price calculator that you can use to estimate the costs for your planned architecture. I would also recommend doing extensive research on the limits imposed by Microsoft. There is a page that details these limits, but there are some things that are not visible to the users. I would also recommend researching the hidden layers of the storage platform known as storage stamps, and how it can impact the copy speed of storage blobs.