What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure?

I would rate the pricing of Microsoft Azure at eight out of ten, which makes it on the pricier side for me.

It is payable for what you need and how much you use.

We pay a monthly licensing fee for the solution, which could be cheaper.

Azure is a strong competitor to AWS. AWS has a competitive pricing strategy, but Azure offers unique benefits. Azure provides credits, which can reduce costs for a certain period. For example, you might receive yearly credits, resulting in zero infrastructure investment for that year.

We are using the free version.

The product is expensive.

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

The setup procedure was simple and the cost is relatively friendly.

Azure's pricing is generally considered reasonable and cost-effective compared to AWS, although AWS prices can be higher in some cases.

I rate the product price a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is high price, and ten is low price.

The pricing is relatively high.

The pricing is cheap.

Microsoft Azure's pricing is reasonable. We pay around 5000 dollars per annum.

Microsoft Azure is a cost-effective solution where you use it as per your requirement and pay for it.

I rate the pricing a five or six out of ten.

I pay for a yearly subscription. Compared to other service providers, the product’s pricing is normal.

I pay a yearly subscription fee for the solution. The pricing is normal compared to other service providers. I can increase or decrease my subscription based on my organization's needs.

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.

The pricing is reasonable.

I'm currently comparing it with AWS, and we don't have full knowledge of all the features and their inclusion in the price. AWS seems to have a slight advantage in terms of price. So, Microsoft Azure is slightly expensive.

Microsoft Azure overall is an expensive solution. In general, if you compare Amazon AWS with the price of Microsoft Azure host cloud service, Microsoft Azure is more expensive than Amazon AWS. I didn't see any hidden costs.

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

Azure is expensive, but that depends upon who you ask. It probably wouldn't be considered a significant expense for a large corporation, but it's costly for smaller enterprises or startups. Pricing is one area where Azure has room for improvement. There should be some due consideration. Azure has solved some issues with pricing from the development team's standpoint, but it is still quite costly. They should also offer a trial period for the individual platform solutions. I think that would be pretty handy for the developers.

Azure is cheaper than solutions from other cloud vendors like AWS or Google.

Pricing is determined by how much you can use and how much you want to use it. It's not on a per-user basis; it's on a per subscription basis. It is dependent on how much you use. It has a metering system. If you use a service, you will have to pay for it. You do not have to pay if you do not use any of the services. That's how it works. The licensing fees could be cheaper.

There are no licensing fees.

We pay a licensing fee on a yearly basis. I don't have details in terms of the exact costs. Sometimes there are extra costs here and there.

The price of Microsoft Azure is reasonable.

The pricing is great, as we only pay for what we use. That said, the prices are about to increase in the next month. We do have some clients in South Africa and some clients in Germany, however, we've noticed that the pricing for Germany is less expensive than South Africa. South Africa has a new data center, which is likely why the price is a bit high.

The price of this solution is one of the things that attracted us to it.

The pricing is fair and it was actually just reduced. My organization is paying approximately $100,000 annually with close to one thousand users. There are no additional fees.

The licensing is based on usage. Typically, it's a monthly fee that is paid to Microsoft.

The pricing is quite good, and it is designed as pay-per-use.

We pay a monthly licensing cost.

The price of the solution is unclear. it's hard to find the costs.

We spend around $10,000 per month on licensing and that's just for Azure. In addition, there is a per user charge for using Office 365.

The price of Azure is competitive with other cloud providers.

With every cloud solution, you have to know what you need and the cost can be fine. The price can be a little bit high depending on how you manage your costs, but overall it's still a bit cheaper than an on-premise solution but with the advantage of flexibility. You're always up to date with the software, you only need to use it. You no longer have to be concerned with the on-premise physical security. We do not need to create a data center, it's more convenient for us.

The cost of Microsoft Azure depends on the services that are used and there can be a discount at a corporate level from Microsoft.

Azure's pricing could be more competitive. Some clients mentioned that they are considering switching to AWS because of the price. And AWS can provide you with the instant capacity called SpotLink.

Their licensing costs might be a little bit lower, compared to AWS, but I'm not sure. I think we get licenses, especially on long-term projects, on a yearly basis. It could be cheaper.

Currently, we do not have anything reserved. There are no reservations that we have built into the Azure environment, so all of our licensing is on a consumption basis. As things spin up, those licenses spin up. In terms of the additional costs incurred beyond the standard licensing fee, such as for operations, it's kind of tough for me to judge because I already had a fully-staffed operations team in a fully on-premise platform environment. So, we didn't spin up anybody extra for that. It just changed what they were doing.

The price of the solution could be cheaper in general. We are on a monthly subscription to the solution.

Licensing is available for Azure. We mainly use Azure in a research context and to showcase what's possible, not from a scalability context, so our usage is limited from that standpoint.

There is a monthly fee you need to pay for the use of Microsoft Azure.

The price of the solution could be reduced. There should be a loyalty cost reduction model. If customers have been using the service year after year they should receive a discount.

The licensing is pay per usage, so it can be both monthly and yearly. It supports all. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees. There are various licensing programs, so the customer may choose the one which aligns with his needs.

Its costing can be improved. Its licensing is monthly. In addition to the standard license fee, there is a transactional cost.

All services in the cloud are easy to set up, the services are ready to use from the outset. For example, it would take me 5 minutes to deploy one virtual machine in Azure, or a Sharepoint cluster may take me 4 hours. The cloud deployments are normally automatic once you start. Regarding licensing, always look to optimize costs with the use of Azure Advisor.

The pricing depends on the solutions I want to use, but I think the price is good because there are many free features in the solution. If you need something more advanced, like Azure AD Premium, you have other features available like risk management.

The subscription models can be confusing and it would be beneficial for them to simplify them. We are on an annual subscription.

The cost of the solution could be reduced. However, I am using the free version.

The licensing is always confusing with Microsoft. It's very hard to understand.

Price could always be cheaper. Its licensing and usage aren't always cheap. We pay monthly.

Azure could be cheaper. Of course, if you ask anyone, they'll always say it could be cheaper. We are paying monthly.

Customers pay for our software and use our solution as a service through monthly payments. They don't pay the licensing fee directly to Microsoft. We provide a solution as a service to our customers. They pay us for our services, which are based on Microsoft.

The price of the solution could be less expensive and the pricing model could be less confusing.

The price of the Azure license could be cheaper.

We pay yearly for the license.

Everything involves an annual commitment with a monthly charge.

The license cost could be reduced.

Azure uses enterprise licenses, and I believe they are on a yearly basis. One piece of feedback from other users I have heard from is that Azure is somewhat expensive, so I would advise anyone thinking about this solution to be aware of the cost. You need to take into account the configuration you are going with or it could turn out to be a more expensive solution than you anticipated. Sometimes, I feel that it may not be very straightforward for a consumer to estimate the cost. It's important to be clear in terms of your budget and what you're actually purchasing.

We are on a monthly subscription for Microsoft Azure and the cost is more expensive than some of the competitors, such as Amazon AWS. They should be more competitive with other solutions.

We have an annual license subscription to use the solution.

The pricing of Microsoft Azure is not very flexible.

The price of the solution is reasonable.

Licensing fees are paid monthly.

Customers need to purchase additional services because of the complexity of it.

We have difficulty in getting the costing approved. We pay for a virtual machine and the resources currently implemented there, then we need a license from Microsoft Windows OS and the database itself. In our latest license purchase, the manager approved a monthly fee of around $2,000 for the resources we use. If you're going to the cloud, that's currently included in the cost and will be less if you have the software assurance from Microsoft; on-prem is more expensive.

As of now, there are no monthly or yearly subscription fees.

We are on an annual subscription. However, there are other options available.

The pricing is fair. It's not overly expensive.

The pricing of the solution could be reduced. We are not able to create a free account in my country.

The solution has the potential to be expensive if you as a company are not careful as to how you use it.

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.

The price of the solution can be expensive.

The pricing is more or less the same as AWS. They are very competitive with each other. There isn't too much of a difference, price-wise. In our case, the solution doesn't have a license. It's subscription-only. However, you can buy your own license separately and install it on whatever system application you're using on Azure. This is the same in the case of AWS.

There are added costs to the company or for scaling for most premium products.

We'd prefer lower pricing. Microsoft can be costly. Due to COVID, many small companies can't handle the costs that Microsoft is charging. They need to be more flexible. If customers were going through cloud solutions, they should get more of a discount.

We're happy with the licensing pricing in general. It's not overly expensive.

It's a pay-as-you-go subscription.

Licensing is on a monthly basis. It is paid on a per-use basis. I am quite happy with the pricing. You pay for what you get.

Pay as you go pricing always helps, but you need to be very careful while considering the services. You would need to consider how it all works and how you will be charged. With adequate knowledge, I think you can come up with a good model where the pricing won't be a constraint.

The pricing could be a bit lower. It would make their customers happy if they decided to charge less. We pay a yearly licensing fee.

The license is on a monthly basis.

We have a subscription and the price is reasonable.

We pay for the license on a monthly basis.

The solution is too expensive. They need to work on the pricing. I can't speak to the exact cost our company pays in order to use Azure.

We're on a three-year standard license. We do have to pay for licensing.

I am currently on a pay-as-you-go subscription and my customers are going to be on a three-year contract. For what is offered in the three-year package it is quite reasonably priced. However, if I was to run it in my office from my own service it would be cheaper but the risk is too high. Here in South Africa, we have something called load shedding where the electricity is turned off for periods of time to regulate to load of the electricity being used. It can go off for five to six hours causing the batteries in the cell towers and fiber exchanges to start dropping and then the customers are offline. This is why I have to move to a cloud platform that has generators, redundancy on fiber connections, and other mechanisms in place. It creates a lot of challenges for us. Microsoft has two data centers in South Africa, one in Johannesburg and one in Cape Town. We will most likely be balancing between South Africa, Europe, and maybe even have a service in Australia.

I think licensing is pay as you go because you have a monthly budget assigned to your account and depending on which services are running, it's consumed from that budget.

The price of the solution could be cheaper.

The licensing price is fine. We pay it on a monthly basis.

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

Its pricing model can be improved. It is variable, and if you do a simulation now, within a few months, the price can change, and your simulation would no longer be valid.

There is a license for the solution.

It is affordable compared to other vendors

The price of the solution is reasonable.

The price is good, but it can always be cheaper.

The licensing costs are quite reasonable.

We have approached our clients about using Kubernetes or Docker because it's cheaper when inflation is considered.

The solution does not offer very many free services which can become expensive. We are on an annual license.

I believe that we have a three-year license, and I'm happy with the pricing.

Microsoft Azure comes with a long-term license and trial licenses as well.

We would like to see Microsoft lower its prices a bit for their customers. It's a costly solution.

The solution does require a license.

It has the pay-as-you-go model. Its pricing should be better.

The pricing is better than AWS.

We're paying in dollars, and it's very expensive for us because of the exchange rates. We have all kinds of agreements with the partner, and we'll be paying quarterly. But it depends on how you want to pay. It depends on the option that's flexible for you.

I've found the cost to be a bit high. You also get dinged for extra things along the way. The charges are also unpredictable. Even if you think something is a relatively static item, they'll charge you for it and it will change your expectation of the cost.

Price-wise, it is comparable to other solutions for the features that we are using.

Software licensing models can be expensive depending on what you need compared to open source solutions, for example. However, if you don't have the technical skills, you may be better off paying for a license and support instead of trying to use open source solutions.

It is expensive, but it is less expensive than AWS. Even with it being cheaper than AWS, the price could be cheaper. It is similar to AWS, where it is on-demand and is billed monthly.

The pricing is flexible. Our company engaged in negotiations to get a better price, which resulted in a two-year contract. It seems that the cost of using the service in the short term is definitely good. However, in the long-term it is different. The long-term cost is higher than if you set up the servers on-premises, which is something that could be improved through more competitive pricing.

You do need to pay for technical support and there are different tiers of support you can get. The higher the tier, it seems, the better the service you can expect.

Our customers don't have to pay any licensing fees in order to use Azure.

I don't handle the licensing or payments aspect of the solution. I can't speak to the costs involved or what the license looks like. In AWS, our monthly cost was something around $10,000 or something close to that. We had to pay around $120,000 a year. It's most likely something close to that.

The current pricing is on a pay-as-you-go subscription.

It's a metered environment, and it's pay-as-you-go. That's the big challenge with a metered environment. The challenge is optimizing how you use that to reduce your meter costs. It's like your children have to be good at not leaving the lights on in their bedroom to save on the power bill. That's a cultural change. You have to change your consumption patterns, and that's hard to do. You can get a very big bill because your consumption patterns aren't very good. We're no different than any other organization that's gone to a public cloud. You get these surprise bills, and then you've got to figure out how to manage them down appropriately. For us, the additional cost is connectivity to the Azure data center. They said that we had to set up an Equinix data center to get from our location here in Regina, Saskatchewan, to Toronto down East. Those are some big new communication charges that we didn't have before. That adds a significant cost to that. Private internet connectivity to a cloud is a big expense. That can be a very big cost, especially for remote businesses that are co-located to cloud data centers.

This is an expensive product.

It is affordable, but its subscription price could be cheaper.

I currently use the pay-as-you-go option.

Its price should be optimized so that we can use more features.

The price needs to be lower because they're competing with AWS. AWS, price-wise, is sexier. In this case, Azure needs to do better in terms of pricing. We are on a subscription; we pay on a monthly basis. It's consumption-based, so the price varies depending on usage.

The pricing is decent. We don't find that they are charging too much. It's pretty fair.

The pricing is likely reasonable. If you compare it to other cloud providers, there isn't too much of a difference. It likely is competitive in the market.

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.

The pricing for the end-user packages is a bit high. It is full of very interesting services, but I would still like it to be less expensive.

Most of the pricing from Microsoft is reasonable. The prices are very good for the services.

The price of the solution is okay although it depends on the region of the deployment.

The cost could definitely be lower.

There are monthly and yearly payment plans. We save more in the long run with the yearly option.

It's an OPEX model, you pay as you go, or you can reserve funds. Pricing can always be better.

Initially, it was difficult to setup. The complexity comes in when there are more items to configure. We pay our bill in a monthly or 6 monthly billing cycle. The cost depends on how much you use during the period.

The cost structure is like most cloud-based services. The solution could be cheaper, it is always better to be cheaper.

Licensing is on an annual basis.

Its price can be cheaper. Price is always an issue. We pay around $10,000 per month for all resources.

The licensing is based on usage. I'm not sure of the exact costs involved as it's not an aspect of the solution that is my responsibility. That said, it is my understanding that it is a bit expensive.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

Pricing is comparable but from a cost perspective, this solution is the cheapest.

For our region, Bangladesh, the pricing of the product is too much.

It's hard to gauge what the pricing will be, so It's hard to plan with the solution. The licensing needs to be more transparent and obvious.

The licensing fees depend on the number of users that we have.

It is competitive with other public cloud providers, and its price is very close to different cloud providers. There is not a noticeable difference between different cloud providers. Otherwise, it would be a risk for them to have services that were much more expensive than their competition. They're pretty much neck to neck on pricing.

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.

The pricing model can be improved because we find that Azure pricing is a bit high.

It is not cheap. Its price could be a little bit less.

We usually use the subscription model Azure has. However, that doesn't include monitoring. We're looking at a new budget for that. It would be apart from the main Azure consumption. However, I don't know the exact pricing. It's not part of the work I do.

The solution offers a freemium model. There are some things that they can give for free, however, if you exceed certain levels in terms of what you were initially given, then they have to charge you for that. That's why, usually when you create the account, they want you to use your credit card so that when you exceed your limit, they will be able to charge you for that. When you want to do the license, there is a certain amount that you need to pay. The pricing varies according to usage and differs in terms of the services and the models that you need. For those who need a platform as a service for developers, or infrastructure as a service, or software as a service, they provide for those scenarios. However, the pricing will depend on the service that you want.

The pricing model is subscription-based and it's not an expensive solution.

The cost is a little high and can be more competitive.

The pricing for us is higher because we are using IaaS.

Reducing the price would be of benefit to our customers.

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.

So far we are satisfied with the pricing of Microsoft Azure.

The price of Microsoft Azure is pretty good. Among the top market players, it’s usually the cheapest or the one after. Our usage is more than $1,000,000 USD annually.

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.

Pricing is the worst aspect of both AWS and Azure. It is very difficult to predict costs in my experience. There is often a base price (for running a VM for example), but then you have to pay for data storage costs plus data transmission costs, etc. I would prefer to have a predictable monthly cost for unlimited storage within a bandwidth for example, but there isn't an easy way to predict costs.

The pricing is very competitive.