Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

I use the product for the environments in the company, specifically for the environments in production, QA, and development.

I used it in the finance industry at a bank. Now I have moved to another bank, which is the biggest.

For Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), we only used it to orchestrate the Kubernetes pods. We didn't use the other features. We only used the environment to start our application.

I utilized the automatic scaling capabilities.

The integration with Azure Active Directory helped with the security of our applications.

I think Amazon EKS is better. EKS is the best because there are many features to use for scaling and to control the environments.

I am not sure about areas that could be improved.

I have limited knowledge about AWS EKS because I started working here 20 days ago.

I started with EKS in AWS about one month ago. With Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), I worked for three years.

It's very stable, and the support is satisfactory. I don't have significant problems with the environments, which I consider good.

The automatic scaling helped with scalability.

I would score Microsoft support as 10 out of 10.

They are very fast to respond and begin analysis to resolve problems, which is why I give them a perfect score.

Positive

I have experience with both Amazon and Azure products, but now I don't work with Azure anymore. I changed jobs and work at C6 Bank, focusing only on Kubernetes and Service Mesh. I stopped working with storage and Azure.

The initial setup is very easy.

I would rate it 10 regarding how easy it is to set up.

My company was a partner with Microsoft.

It helped through the health of our environments and the costs, assisting with FinOps.

The solution is very expensive in my opinion.

The built-in monitoring can be expensive as well.

We didn't use the built-in logging from Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). Sometimes we enable Log Analytics, but it's very expensive and only enabled if necessary to analyze significant problems.

My company was a partner with Microsoft.

In the last year, I had more experience with Azure products but did not work with them.

I am familiar with Red Hat Kubernetes, but we're using EKS on AWS.

I used Linux containers and did not use Windows containers. It was able to containerize and deploy those containers easily.

It provided more security and was easier to work with the integration with Azure Monitor and Azure Security Center.

I don't know about improvements regarding the price, but they could improve it.

I worked with Amazon EKS.

I rate this solution 7 out of 10.

My main use case for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is hosting a Comark website on it. In addition to hosting a Comark website, I have started using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for hosting AI workloads as well.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) positively impacts my organization by helping us reduce costs; we run multiple microservices under one Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) cluster using different namespaces, isolating each application and making management easy with beneficial add-ons.

I see significant improvements in cost savings, deployment speed, and reduced manual work across all three metrics with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). Using spot instances in lower environments expedites deployments with a microservices approach. Integrations with other systems and automation are seamless; we follow a GitOps approach using tools like Argo CD and Flux CD for automated deployments.

The best features Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) offers include compatibility with existing MS infrastructure, ease of managing access through AD, and accessible RBACs. On top of that, it provides many add-on features such as Prometheus, service mesh, and other tools, with good support and easy upgrades that save us from downtime.

The ease of managing access through AD in Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) helps my team day-to-day. Without AD management and RBACs, generating certificates, approving CSRs, and using those certificates to access Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) becomes very troublesome and complicated, especially for new team members. This functionality makes that part very easy. Additionally, applications hosted within Azure have seamless connectivity to databases, making it easier to onboard numerous applications, handle networks, and troubleshoot. Regarding upgrades, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) frequently provides updates, which simplifies the process significantly compared to managing bare metal systems.

I do not see any specific areas for improvement in Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), except for the kind of support they provide. At times, the engineers I connect with are not very skilled.

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for more than four years.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is very stable; I rarely see any hiccups.

The scalability of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is one of the best I have experienced in the market, with node auto-scalers that quickly respond to high workloads, supported by capabilities such as KEDA and horizontal pod auto-scaling.

Customer support for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is typically good, but in some instances where technical expertise is required, I sometimes feel I know more than the support personnel.

Positive

I started my career with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and did not previously use a different solution. I was not part of the evaluation team before choosing Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and worked on bare metal systems. I have heard that GKE is not favorable, but I cannot speak from experience as certain capabilities aligned with our workloads led us to choose Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS).

We see a return on investment with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), as we no longer manage the control plane ourselves, which saves us a lot of time and employee effort. We also do not have to manage the OS on underlying nodes or worry about upgrades and security patching, as those are taken care of automatically.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) involves booking quotas for commitments of three to five years to receive significant discounts, along with using Azure Advisor, which helps identify opportunities for cost savings by showing where we spend the most money.

I would rate Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) at a nine out of ten. I deduct one point for customer support, as seventy percent of the time I interact with lower-skilled candidates for troubleshooting issues.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is deployed in a public cloud within my organization, hosted on Azure Cloud, where we restrict access through VPNs and authorized IP ranges, ensuring that no one can directly connect to API servers. We also have our Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) clusters peered in different regions, acting as both an active site and a disaster recovery site.

For those looking into using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), I advise considering the expected size and infrastructure of your system before setting up virtual networks, as using smaller subnets can lead to scalability challenges. Starting with Azure CNI overlay can prevent these issues.

I find it satisfactory that Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) ships upgrades frequently, helping us stay on top of technology, keep our stack updated, and achieve stable results.

We are a customer from a government organization. The solution is used for products related to machine learning. Since we are a government organization, we do not see any profit.

We have multiple solutions such as SimpliVity, Nutanix, and DXRail, which are all part of our Ansible-based system. It gives us more confidence and we can control our groups effectively.

The solution is not particularly user-friendly for novice administrators, making it challenging to understand certain aspects. Templates are not readily available, requiring users to build their own worksheets and everything from scratch. This is a main decentralization we observe compared to VMware.

We have tested various solutions including Rancher, RHEL, Canonical from SUSE, and the bare metal version from RHEL direct. Since pricing is not a major concern, we chose the best fit for our application, which was specifically designed for this particular platform.

The main area for improvement is pricing. It is costly compared to other solutions such as Canonical. When purchasing support directly from RHEL, the price is significantly high.

We have been using the products since March, approximately 3 months.

It has not been enough time to properly evaluate the products as we have only been using them for 2-3 months. We need to wait at least 6-8 months to make confident comments about stability.

The customer service is straightforward.

Neutral

We previously worked with different products, not OpenText products, but we are not currently using them.

The initial setup was satisfactory, which influenced our purchase decision. We completed the POC and initial studies before making the purchase.

We have a managed project with professional services from RHEL and Azure.

The solution has great support and is flexible to understand. We build and provide it to stakeholders who mainly manage it, with only the fashion part being ordered.

Regarding support response times, there are some timing issues due to our country location. While our SLA is one hour and they usually respond within 45 minutes, we expected quicker responses. Based on SLA compliance, we would rate it 8 out of 10.

We are using on-premises Kubernetes from RHEL Openshift.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

We are using Azure Kubernetes Service as a customer. I cannot detail all the products and technologies we are using.

There isn't one specific feature of Azure Kubernetes Service that I can name as most valuable. It's part of a strategic solution yet I don't see an advantage compared to our personal cloud solution. Our move to Azure did not bring any cost reductions.

I am not impressed with the support services from Microsoft yet. Even being a big customer, I would rate the support four out of ten. The costs are rising rapidly, and we have not seen any cost reductions by moving to Azure.

We have been using Azure Kubernetes Service for approximately a year.

I would rate the stability of Azure Kubernetes Service eight out of ten.

We are not yet fully public cloud-native, however, Azure Kubernetes Service promises interesting scalability and flexibility for the future.

The customer service is not satisfying. I would rate it four out of ten. It's not very good.

Positive

We previously used our own cloud solution built on top of IBM. We decided to move to Azure due to cost considerations and an initial strategy to transition to the public cloud.

The initial setup was time-consuming and involved consultants. We started with one implementation, moved to our own solution on Azure, and later shifted to a policy-based model.

We made use of many Microsoft consultants during the implementation phase.

In terms of return on investment, the costs seem to have increased compared to our own data center solutions.

Transitioning to Azure did not bring cost reductions; in fact, costs are rising rapidly. We have not seen any savings compared to our previous setup.

We used our own cloud solution built on IBM and currently employ solutions from Cisco and Oracle.

It's too early to make recommendations as it depends on the organization's plan and goals.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

My primary use case is building and deploying solutions using multiple Azure services. I combine these services to build systems on Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). Since I work mainly as a back-end developer, my focus is on deploying these solutions within AKS environments.

My organization wants to migrate to Azure Cloud for better scalability in Kubernetes environments. AKS allows us to set up servers with unlimited resources and scale them based on demand, without worrying about internal server management.

The most valuable features of Azure Kubernetes Service are its integration with Kubernetes, offering similar features for a seamless experience. AKS provides the auto-scale feature and manages the master node, allowing me to focus on the worker nodes only. This removes the need for managing master node updates or operating systems.

One improvement I'd like to see is a better user interface for developers, enabling easier operation without relying heavily on command lines.

I have been working with Azure Kubernetes Service for almost two years.

I haven't experienced any specific issues with the stability of AKS. From my usage, I would rate its stability as eight to nine out of ten.

AKS offers excellent scalability due to its adaptation from Kubernetes. The auto-scale feature allows for optimized resource usage, focusing only on worker nodes. I rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

I did not participate in the initial setup of Azure Kubernetes Service.

I am involved in writing and deploying scripts for applications via the deployment service.

The pricing for Azure Kubernetes Service seems to be around the average, which I would rate as a five out of ten.

For new users evaluating AKS, if you want a platform where you don't need to manage OS updates or operations, AKS might be a good choice. It allows you to focus on your work and provides very effective scaling features. 

Overall, I rate AKS as a seven out of ten.

Could you please describe your customers' usual use cases for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)?

Could you please tell what features of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) you have found the most valuable?

There might be something that you find indispensable in Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS).

In your experience, how has the integration of Azure Active Directory with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) helped enhance the security of application?

Could you please assess the impact of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) built-in monitoring and logging features on your ability to track applications performance and troubleshoot issues?

How have the monitoring and logging features impacted the ability to track application performance and troubleshoot issues?

Could you please tell what areas of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) you think could be improved or enhanced?

It doesn't necessarily have to be something advanced. Perhaps there are some minor things, such as improving the user interface, making the configuration or customization more flexible. Or maybe there were some limitations that you would prefer to remove?

Would you prefer to improve the flexibility with the network services?

Four or five years now?

Could you please rate how scalable this solution is from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest scalability?

Specifically about the scalability, does it scale well? Does it need improvements?

Could you please share your impression on the pricing, setup cost and licensing of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)?

The costs could be optimized in some way.

Have you been working with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)?

Has automatic scaling capability helped your organization, or your customers' organization, to manage varying workloads and ensure high availability?

I am calling from PeerSpot. We are the leading review platform. We collect reviews from real users of enterprise technologies. Currently, we are expanding our database of reviews.

At PeerSpot, we collect reviews for different technical solutions, different categories and vendors including Microsoft, VMware, Oracle, SAP, Amazon, Google, and many others.

If you don't already have an account on PeerSpot, PeerSpot will create an account for you and email you login credentials. PeerSpot will publish your review in written or audio format on peerspot.com and make it available to other users. PeerSpot will email you a link to a written review, and you will be able to edit it at any time. Your review may be made available to third parties and third-party websites, and if you choose to remain anonymous, your name will not appear with the review. You are also opted in to receive email notifications relevant to your review, which you can opt out of at any time. The use of your review is subject to PeerSpot's terms of use that may be accessed at peerspot.com.

I am using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for enterprise applications. These applications are divided into microservices, and we have multiple environments hosting various applications within Kubernetes.

The integration with Azure's security capabilities is very good. The Azure-managed identity and integration with the Azure application gateway for App Ingress are valuable features. Additionally, it is a very stable tool.

No improvements needed as Azure Kubernetes Service follows the Kubernetes standards very well and meets the required standards.

I have used Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for more or less four years.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is a stable platform. In terms of stability, I would rate it as a nine out of ten.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) scales very well and is very easy to use for scaling demands.

Support from Microsoft for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is very good. I would rate their support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

I previously used Azure Container Apps. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is more flexible but more complex to maintain. The Azure Container Apps are easier to use but lack some features.

The initial setup is moderately challenging. I am using infrastructure as code frameworks like Terraform and Ansible, which significantly accelerate the deployment process.

Normally, the deployment is shared among a team of four to seven people.

The pricing for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) could be better; it is relatively expensive.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is a stable and reliable platform for resolving enterprise problems.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We use the product mostly for development purposes. Some are in the pilot phase for customer usage, however, there's no real production workload active right now on these services. It is mostly for dev test and pilot purposes.

It has made life much easier because I don't have to manage Kubernetes myself. It saves time and efforts on the infrastructure side, letting me hand off service administration jobs to junior admins without the fear of them screwing up the environment.

I don't have to furnish my own infrastructure in order to run containers or Kubernetes. It makes life easier if you want to run containers at scale. The integration with Azure tools is also straightforward, making it easy to configure storage for the containers.

The setup process could be more user-friendly, and additional documentation would be beneficial. Additionally, the overall documentation could be improved to be more concise and available, similar to the documentation provided by AWS.

I've used the solution foor about one and a half years now.

The stability of the product is very good; we have not encountered any major issues.

Scalability seems to be pretty good based on our experience. We haven't done a huge scale-out so far. Whatever scaling we've done has been smooth.

The customer service and support from Microsoft have been a disaster. Sometimes, they are reachable; sometimes, they're not. Some tickets have been open for six weeks. The support personnel are friendly yet are often unable to push the right buttons to actually move things within the Microsoft organization.

Negative

We are actively pursuing multi-cloud engagement. We are still using Azure for certain services, but for several new workloads or services, we will probably be switching to AWS.

The initial setup process was really challenging the first time. It required getting accustomed to different names and configurations compared to regular Docker or Kubernetes.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not cheap but is just about affordable. It is okay in terms of pricing but doesn't stand out as exceptionally reasonable.

The main competitor and preferred solution would be Amazon's ECS as it is very good.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) works. That said, it is not my preferred solution for running containers in the cloud. I would strongly prefer to use Amazon for critical workloads due to better documentation and support. I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

We began utilizing AKS this year. Our aim is to embrace cloud-native practices, and Kubernetes is an excellent choice for achieving that. Additionally, Nicola seems to be well-suited for our needs. Therefore, we decided to adopt Kubernetes as our platform for software development. This allows us to enable the app team to effortlessly create infrastructure using the infrastructure scope. While we still rely on virtual machines, it is solely for the purpose of visualization, not for hosting the service. Our focus remains on building specialized software.

AKS provides a convenient solution for developers. When working locally, developers can leverage containerization technologies like Docker and Docker Compose. However, when it comes to testing environments, the Infrastructure as Code feature of AKS allows for easy setup of the entire testing environment. The team can collaborate and make necessary adjustments, while developers can switch back to their local environment whenever needed. The staging environment follows a similar pattern, as the same template can be applied, enabling quick hosting of the entire infrastructure. This approach saves a significant amount of time in infrastructure creation. Additionally, it adds another layer for the DevOps team, reducing their burden of dealing with cloud infrastructure details and allowing them to focus on capabilities. This streamlined process can be replicated across multiple projects, making it a valuable aspect of AKS.

The advantage of AKS is somewhat greater than that of Kubernetes, such as those provided by Google Cloud or AWS. However, the unique benefit offered by Microsoft is its robust CI/CD capabilities, along with the Azure feature for building workflows. When you combine the entire ecosystem, AKS becomes an excellent choice, particularly for enterprise applications.

Microsoft is known for its groundbreaking desktop operating system and has developed an efficient and user-friendly application called Orchestrate. It serves as a business workflow management tool, allowing enterprises to streamline their processes effortlessly. Additionally, Microsoft now offers the Logic application, which further simplifies workflow creation for businesses at an enterprise level.

AKS could enhance its functionality by introducing a blueprint feature that streamlines and expedites the process. With a blueprint, users can leverage pre-defined configurations, including some common survey elements, reducing the need for extensive customization and allowing us to focus on our core business activities. Additionally, if the blueprint covers security aspects, it would be greatly beneficial, as it eliminates the need for us to build security expertise from scratch. Currently, we encounter challenges during cloud onboarding, security implementation, and adapting to Kubernetes. Although Microsoft may not consider these as their direct responsibility, providing a blueprint similar to what they offer to developers would be highly advantageous.

I have been using Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately one year.

I have not had a bad experience with AKS. It is stable.

I rate the stability of AKS an eight out of ten.

The scalability of AKS is good enough for our current business. If people want to have higher scalability, they move to Amazon AWS.

I rate the scalability of AKS an eight out of ten.

We are a very big organization and we rely on our internal support.

The setup of AKS can be complicated.

We have seen a return on investment. 

I rate the ROI of AKS an eight out of ten.

We are facing a significant challenge regarding OEM licensing. The issue arises from the fact that certain licenses required for our own purposes are not provided by Microsoft's licensing. Consequently, we are unsure about the most suitable mobile license provisioning model offered by third-party providers.

The software necessitates licensing, and it becomes a complex issue when we provision multiple virtual machines with that software installed. Managing the licensing model becomes challenging as we face uncertainties regarding payment to the vendor. For instance, if we initially create three virtual machines with high demand but later require a hundred, the payment structure becomes unclear.

I rate the price of AKS a six out of ten.

The price is expensive but a lower price can be found. There are various different types of licenses.

My advice to others is to be aware of the in-depth setup.

I rate AKS an eight out of ten.

In general, building services within this solution can be complex and demanding, particularly in terms of the investment required for DevOps and SecOps. If your team lacks extensive technical expertise, it might be challenging to start directly with Kubernetes. However, if you have individuals with sufficient internet skills, you can leverage the scalability and simplicity offered by Kubernetes. Here, simplicity refers to the consistent experience compared to migrating from on-premise to the cloud. Nonetheless, the investment in pre-existing knowledge, appropriate SKUs, and skilled personnel is crucial. Applying Kubernetes is still not a straightforward task and requires careful consideration.

I use the solution for micro-services deployment. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) has helped reduce downtime. 

I have used almost all the features of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), but the Front Door and Service Bus are the most vital features. Our organization also uses Azure Database, Insights, Log Workspace, and Azure Functions.  

The cost of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is extremely high. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for four years. 

Based on the support, documentation and user-friendly interface of the solution, I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is very easy to scale, and in our organization, we are using VMSS for scaling. The product is more suited for enterprise-level companies. 

I would rate the tech support an eight out of ten. As our company has availed a basic plan of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), the response time is longer in a few cases where I have resolved the issues on my own through extensive research. But in most cases, I have received effective help from the support team which I truly appreciate. 

Positive

I have worked on the solution's setup for multiple environments and found the deployment to be easy and hassle-free. When using Terraform to configure the solution, I faced some issues at one point, which were resolved by the support team of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). 

At our company, we follow a complete cloud-based model for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). 

I have worked with Azure and AWS solutions, but comparatively, the price of Azure products is much greater. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is an expensive solution, and our organization's clients have complained about it. 

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is a bit expensive compared to AWS solutions, but other than that, there are no advantages to choosing another solution. 

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) can be easily integrated with other tools of the Azure environment. For our company projects where the solution is being used, I have onboarded them at a later stage, but rarely have I had to seek help from the support team. 

Documentations for the product are easily available. I would overall rate Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend the product to other users. For enterprise projects, where the clients have a heavy budget, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) can be adopted without any doubt.