Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We use SQL Azure to integrate the on-prem resources with the cloud. It creates a replica of our database in the cloud. We have more than 50 users.

SQL Azure is good with transactional systems.

If it's a transitional system, there is a lot of reporting, so the solution becomes a bit slow when it's churning out tons of data, but it's good for a mid-sized application

We've been using SQL Azure for around five years.

We are using SQL Azure extensively. It is still being utilized in the gigabyte and petabyte range for older applications, as well.

We are a gold partner, so we have the option to use gold-tier support.

Deploying SQL Azure is easy. It takes only one engineer to deploy.

We have an enterprise license. 

I rate SQL Azure nine out of 10. I would recommend it to others.

We have a lot of stuff that is still on-prem, and we're only sticking our toe in the water with SQL Azure. For what we're doing, it is a simple database. We haven't yet put any of our harder stuff on Azure.

SQL Azure is in the cloud. So, it has to be the latest version. It is version agnostic.

The main advantage of it is that there is no infrastructure cost. We don't have to host it here. So, there is no infrastructure cost. 

The second advantage is elasticity. We can grow it or shrink it depending on the demand. We have no restraint on capacity.

There is probably more functionality in our on-prem SQL Server than SQL Azure. 

I have been using this solution for about two years.

It is stable, and there are no issues.

Its scalability is very good.

It was straightforward.

We have a third party for its deployment and maintenance.

We have the licensing fee, and we are also paying a third party to maintain it with an SLA.

There is no infrastructure cost, but its running costs are higher than expected. There is the cost of the Azure cloud, which is pricier than expected, but it is not specific to SQL Azure. It is specific to the cloud. You expect it to be cheaper, but it is more expensive to run it.

I would advise going for it and exploring it. We've only dipped our toes in the water. We haven't put any of our main things. We're just toying with a few new applications, and we haven't brought everything across, but I would recommend it.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use it also for database management, as a database engine.

We use it for different projects - mainly when we have lots of data and the customer can't afford to pay the license for SQL Server, which is not cheap. That's the main reason we use MySQL or Postgres or other databases. 

The management and the remote access in SQL Azure are seamless.

The solution is extremely scalable.

We've found the stability to be quite good.

It's the type of product that doesn't need much technical support assistance as it works seamlessly.

Some data types are not available on SQL Azure while it's available on SQL Server. It's a little bit limited in terms of functionality. The difference is not huge. You can go back and forth between them. We used to do this all the time. However, it is something to note.

Maybe they need to add the data types that exist in SQL Server, not in SQL Azure. That would make it better.

The pricing can be high in certain countries as Microsoft doesn't adjust for regional pricing. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good.

The product is on the cloud. It's very scalable for that reason. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

Most of the time no one needs support on SQL products or services. That said, the support in Azure is amazing. We never encountered an issue that they didn't solve. This speaks to the quality of Azure.

We also use SQL Server. The main difference is SQL Server is a full-featured database engine, whereas MySQL is based on what we call a file-based database, which is similar to flat files as a database engine.

The recommendation of which to use is based on the use case. It depends on what use case the customer will need. If they don't have the capacity to manage their own server, I would recommend Azure, as it's managed. You don't have to worry about the management and administration.

The pricing is prevalent for everything Microsoft. The thing is, they don't allow different pricing for different regions. Some countries are price sensitive.

I'm an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I'm currently involved in setting up pipelines on Azure for data extraction from a source to a target destination within specific time intervals. The goal is to automate the process of moving data efficiently.

Previously, the database was on-premises, but now, with the SQL database in the Azure cloud, extracting information from on-premises automatically makes it available in the Azure cloud. The data becomes instantly accessible in the cloud, making it more efficient for you to work with. It's a straightforward and easy process.

One of the most valuable aspects is its seamless integration with Azure Data Factory. Its value lies in the significant time savings as there's minimal competition or customization challenges. This smooth integration makes it easy for me to work with both seamlessly.

There is room for improvement regarding the pricing structure. It would be beneficial if the cost is reduced.

I have been working with it for more than a year.

The system is impressively reliable and stable. I would rate it ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability capabilities eight out of ten.

I've had a positive experience working with their technical support team. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I currently use the Sophos server management solution, which is an on-premises solution. The primary reason for switching to SQL Azure is our plan to migrate to cloud.

The initial setup used to be a bit complex, but now it's much easier. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The deployment process is remarkably quick, taking only a few minutes to connect to the cloud and set up data storage. There's a standard setup without the need for additional or advanced deployment tools. It is handled by a dedicated team, constituting around three to five percent of the overall process. This includes individuals responsible for deployment, validation, and user support, ensuring a straightforward and efficient deployment experience.

The return on investment is a significant advantage for our company, especially since we've implemented this product across multiple distributions and clients. The satisfaction of our clients with the product support is notable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I find that they are relatively expensive, especially when compared to AWS, where the prices are notably lower.

I would highly recommend it. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We are using SQL Azure for databases that are hosted in Microsoft Azure.

SQL Azure is reliable and scales well.

The solution could improve by allowing the export of the data more seamlessly. It is difficult to copy and back up data.

I have been using SQL Azure for three years.

I rate the stability of SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

We have approximately 1,000 people using the solution in my organization.

I rate the scalability of SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

The support is good.

I rate the initial setup of SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

The solution is expensive.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

I think this product can improve its integrations with business intelligence software. The integrations are always cumbersome due to the approvals, passwords, et cetera. 

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

My impression is that this solution is quite stable. I would rate its stability an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the scalability of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. Currently, there are two users of this solution in our company.

I will be doing the implementation myself with the help of a third party.

We evaluated the SQL Server in addition to this solution, but we ultimately chose Azure mainly to have everything on one platform.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We're using it for scalability. Everything is on Azure SQL for us. It is an enterprise application data warehouse, so all our applications are on this. It is useful for entire data warehousing. It is also good for microservices applications. We have its latest version.

It is good for scalability and high availability. It is also secure because of Microsoft's cloud investment.

It is easy to use because it is on the cloud. Creation or making it available through web services is super easy. Azure SQL can be quickly published as web services for APIs to connect with other applications. Because it is in Microsoft Cloud, you can easily integrate with Microsoft stack.

Its price could be better. It is expensive.

I am not sure if Microsoft Master Data Services is included in this. If not, Master Data Services can be integrated with Azure SQL. I have only used Master Data Services on-premises.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable. Microsoft has been in the market for quite some time.

It is quite scalable. It is a good choice for any kind of application database, data warehousing, or data lake. 

In terms of the number of users, it is being used by all users in our enterprise. For development, we have four to five developers, and we also have partners to help us.

Technical support is managed by Microsoft partners, which is good.

Positive

We have used Microsoft SQL Server on-premises. We are still using it, and slowly, we'll move to Azure SQL.

You don't have to install it because it is on the cloud.

It is expensive. Snowflake and PostgreSQL are cheaper than this. Google is also cheaper than Azure. 

Its licensing is on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is based on usage and storage.

I would recommend this solution. If anybody is using Azure Cloud, they should definitely use Azure SQL. Our strategy is to have all our applications on Azure, and we will keep using this solution. We will also be using it for our analytical data mart.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten. It is a good product, and it has all the required features.

We use Azure SQL serverless or with virtual machines.

Azure SQL is used mostly by my clients for ETL.

The most useful feature of Azure SQL is the queries for manipulating the data, such as the tables and the storage processors.

Azure SQL can improve by adding more machine learning features like other databases, such as Cassandra or Cosmos DB.

I have been using SQL Azure for approximately three years.

Azure SQL is a stable solution.

The scalability of Azure SQL is good. However, it is limited by the infrastructure. The cloud version gives more scalability.

The support from Azure SQL is good.

I rate the support from Azure SQL a four out of five.

The initial setup of Azure SQL is of a medium level of difficulty. We need some expertise in installing, configuring, and deploying Azure SQL.

We have approximately 20 to 30 specialists for the deployment of Azure SQL.

The price in general of Azure SQL could improve.

We have enterprises in Chile, Peru, Spain, Italy, and Colombia that provide IT services. We use this solution every day to maintain new projects and use the on-premise and cloud versions.

My advice to others is to review alternatives to Azure SQL. For example, SQL Serverless, SQL with a virtual machine, or Azure SQL Instances.

I rate Azure SQL a nine out of ten.