We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure and Virtuozzo Application Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is useful for handling large amounts of data."
"We have found the most valuable feature to be the pricing calculator."
"The system is more secure, and this is valuable."
"It is easy to install."
"Azure offers broad compatibility with both structured and unstructured data. For example, we use PostgreSQL for storing Azure's official data and manage various types of data, including tabular and image data, accommodating the storage of all data types we handle. So, in many ways, Azure simplified the data storage and management needs."
"Good security, scalability, and elasticity."
"The integration with Databricks is the most valuable aspect of the solution."
"Much more intuitive and more visual than AWS. More obvious where things are and how to change their configurations, etc."
"The solution is scalable, and that is what we are looking at. There is no learning curve as we have not done much research."
"Technical support from Jelastic is very good."
"The dynamic vertical scaling is a unique feature."
"The advanced level of production-ready Docker hosting, one-click application deployment, and the truly flexible pricing."
"The control is valuable. It's really easy to use and you have good control of your solutions."
"The solution could use mutual segmentation for servers. It would be ideal if you could constitute something like five or 15 groups among the groups of different computers inside Azure."
"The local support is fair but it is sometimes limited, the service could be better."
"The initial setup is quite complex because of the number of options that are available."
"Azure installation is complicated. When we first deployed Azure, it was challenging."
"I would like to see more databases on the cloud, what they call today Big Data should be there."
"Onboarding customers is a challenge. Sometimes our customers don't know how to deal with the cloud environment. Maybe the customers are more comfortable with the old-fashioned on-premise environment."
"I'd like to see better integration with S/4HANA integrated and other services, like monitoring, for example."
"Dashboards and reporting could be improved."
"The backup functionality needs to be improved."
"The security layers also need to be improved because there is no clear layer or tier of security in the solution."
"Lacks better integration into enterprise storage products."
"The backup features need improvement, or rather it should be added, as I could not find it."
"For now, some customers are requesting support of Docker containers for Windows."
More Virtuozzo Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 298 reviews while Virtuozzo Application Platform is ranked 15th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while Virtuozzo Application Platform is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Virtuozzo Application Platform writes "A scalable and stable solution that has good scalability and is easy to setup ". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas Virtuozzo Application Platform is most compared with Amazon AWS, OpenShift, VMware Tanzu Application Service, DigitalOcean and SAP Cloud Platform. See our Microsoft Azure vs. Virtuozzo Application Platform report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.