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.

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.

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. 

The solution is used to deploy applications in a very highly scalable model. Any customer can deploy the application. They won't have to worry about the scalability and reliability of the VM. Most things are taken care of by AKS.

Containerization of the applications is the most valuable feature. It needs effort at the code level to decouple the existing codes and put different templates in different clusters. However, once it is done, the tool is highly scalable and reliable.

If any customer uses a traditional code, the code-level changes take a lot of time. Once that is done, there are no challenges. After that, it is pretty straightforward. It would be good if the vendor could provide an out-of-the-box solution that would enable customers to deploy things directly without worrying about code-level changes. Then, the customer does not have to worry about developing the solution again or adding new libraries to the existing code to make the code cloud-ready.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

AKS is a highly scalable model. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Almost 60% of our customers are using the solution. Apart from the SMB customers, all the others are using the product.

I did not face any major challenges. I faced issues once or twice, and it was sorted in a day or two. The support is good.

The time taken for deployment depends on the use cases. The deployment can take 10 to 30 days, depending on the environment and solution we are working with.

The return on investment is not that high. Our customer has to change the codes to move to AKS. Convincing the management about the ROI is pretty tough in such scenarios. However, the tool will produce a good ROI in the long run.

From a licensing perspective, moving from a traditional model to a new one won't make much difference because the same virtual machine is being used in the backend. We are just adding a layer that gives the organization more flexibility and manageability. The solution does not cost much.

The customers have to pay an extra $100 or $150 based on their number of clusters. It won't make much of a difference for any environment. If an organization pays $100 for a normal infrastructure, it will hardly cost 10% extra with added manageability and scalability. It would hardly make a dent in the pocket.

Azure Kubernetes Service is a good solution for any organisation wanting to opt for containerization. AI can be integrated with the application. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I work for cloud transformation with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for major UI transformations of products and services.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) operates on a pay-as-you-go model, so my company can get whatever we require from the tool.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

I have experience with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for two years. My role in the company is to manage all the architects and resources. I am an implementer who develops applications and deploys them.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

My clients who use the product are mostly medium-sized businesses.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I rate the initial setup phase of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) as a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in thirty to forty minutes. After the tool's process was streamlined in our company, it could be deployed in only five to ten minutes.

The product is expensive.

The product supports our company's container orchestration needs since we mainly use it for management and deployment purposes while also covering areas like orchestration and auto-scaling.

The product serves the purpose of helping streamline our company's application deployment and scaling processes.

Speaking about the feature of the product that has been most impactful in managing our Kubernetes-based environment, I would say that I am not into the deployment part of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) since I have to focus more on strategy implementation.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is only one of the services that I have used, and it is a big application. The tool has a lot of UI built on Angular, which is then converted as a microservice and clubbed with Java Spring Boot before deploying it on Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS).

The product offers security and access management features, but there are some areas, like encryption, where some improvements can be made. I rate the product an eight out of ten for security and access management features.

The product's integration with the existing CI/CD pipelines is good. I rate the tool's integration with the existing CI/CD pipelines an eight out of ten.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.