Microsoft Azure Reviews

We are using Active Directory in Azure, so it's for all of the Office 365 services.

This product is quite easy to use and is available on-demand.

There are so many services available that the interface is a little bit messy, and when you're looking for a specific service, you have to know exactly where to search. Having better visibility in the interface would be an improvement.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Azure is a scalable solution. We have approximately 150 users.

We have used technical support and it is very good.

As a cloud-based product, there is no installation.

This is an expensive product.

In summary, this is a good solution, and other than some improvements to the user interface, I cannot think of any features that are missing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's similar to AWS.

It's an infrastructure as a service.

It's a cloud service, so it's always up to date.

If you compare it with AWS, it is not very friendly to use. I find the UI better to work with on AWS.

They easily provide service with Windows, but not with Linux.

I am a beginner, and only been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of months.

Microsoft Azure is pretty stable.

It's a scalable product. Because it's a cloud service, there is an infinite opportunity for scaling.

We only have one or two people who are using this solution in our organization.

I reached out to support once, but they were not that quick to respond.

Technical support could be faster.

I have experience with AWS and Microsoft Azure is not that friendly. It is a bit complicated compared to AWS.

It's a cloud service. There is no installation.

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.

We are not currently using this solution and we are not sure if we will be using it in the future.

 For those who are connected to the Windows Operating System, I would recommend this product. However, I would not recommend it for a Linux environment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use it to host virtual machines and migrate new web applications to the cloud.

With Microsoft Azure, we have a platform that lets us easily deploy applications to the cloud.

They should create integrations with more platforms.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

It enables great scalability.

We are satisfied with the support from Microsoft.

It was quite easy to setup.

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

The solution is basically a platform as a service for web applications, virtual machines, Azure identity, et cetera.

My day-to-day is to migrate servers using Mover or some other app to access on-premises data centers. We then use Azure Migrate to move the servers in order to take advantage of the new functionalities and things like that.

The solution offers good monitoring features that allow us to configure items better in the customer environment. The monitoring is really awesome.

Occasionally, clients have specific requirements for their applications and we can move them onto Azure services or apps. 

Overall, it offers a better way to move the applications and monitor or configure the applications with higher availability. For example, there are load balancers, different types of layers that load balancers use, traffic managers, Front Door, and things of that nature that are available to us and the client via Azure.

Overall, I like how the solution works. It offers everything I need, for the most part.

The user interface is very nice and makes everything easy to use.

The power share modules have been improved, and the AC module was introduced - which has been great. There are ten or 15 more regions on the way as well.

The tools on offer are excellent. It has some really great environment assessment tools as well.

There are preview features we are waiting on. When I contact Microsoft support, there is no timeline given or clear information about when those preview features are going to be on GA, general availability. It would be ideal if they could finally give us at least an estimation of how much longer we have to wait.

Support could be improved. If you pay for a higher plan, it's okay, however, the lower plans don't offer as good of a service experience. It also seems as though each different tier doesn't talk to the other. they should be able to communicate and share details internally with each other so that they are learning from each other instead of staying siloed.

I've been using the solution for the last few years. I would estimate it's been about five years at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely been using the solution over the last 12 months.

In terms of stability, for me, it works. However, depends on the type of project that's happening. If you're going to have just a virtual machine running there then it can fail. That said, the platform offers a lot of options to improve the capability, so it depends on how much money a client wants to invest.

The scalability works just fine. I've had some issues before with Azure App Service, with an App Service environment allocation, however, Microsoft has improved that, making a bigger rack. Since then, I haven't seen issues with scalability. That was maybe a year ago.  

We currently have three clients on Microsoft Azure.

There is room for improvement with technical support. I work with premium support and therefore don't really face issues. We have good engineers. There are some issues when you get a new support person. They have a lot of rotation in their personnel. They train people for a couple of months. They're trying to help however, it's not the same as getting a seasoned professional. It really depends on the support line you buy. If you go for a lower tier, you're likely to get less experienced assistance.  

For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. It was not overly complex. I worked with a Microsoft support engineer. I had contact with the product group and know the technical advisors and technical matters, which made it very easy for me.

For example, in comparison. I tried to use Amazon Web Services by myself, and I got confused as I didn't have that level of support. With Azure, the interface is nice, and it's pretty straightforward. Anybody with a little bit of technical knowledge about working, virtual machines, or similar items can use it with little to no problem. The implementation is pretty good.

The time it takes to deploy the solution depends on the customer environment. If they have 25 servers versus five there will be radically different deployment times.

Typically, we use Microsoft strategies as a foundation assessment. We'll look at the customer environment and be in the background for a couple of weeks to pull some data so we can have a better understanding of the customer environment. After that, we create a plan to start migrating the servers. Each client is unique.

I worked alongside a Microsoft support engineer who assisted in the process.

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.

I haven't used AWS or Google Cloud, therefore I don't really ever compare this solution to them. I don't say "this platform has that and I like how this works". For me, Azure just works and it's fine and I don't need to go in-depth and look at other options.

The company I am working at new does use AWS and we're planning to introduce new cloud technologies as well. 

I'm not a salesperson, however, I can say that we would move the client to whichever technology made sense to them after doing an evaluation of their requirements. That, of course, is handled by a different department.

We are a reseller and a Microsoft Gold partner. We are a CSP, a Cloud Solution Provider. We offer managed services to our customers. We are moving data centers to Azure, however, we are a managed service provider. We have access to the customer's environment in order to pull analytics data to help them with consulting services, and things like that.

My basic advice to those considering the solution is that planning is essential. Microsoft does a good job of advising their customers at the outset to ensure they get what they need, however, it's helpful to go in and understand deeply what it is your company needs overall. 

That said, Azure is a strong cloud and its technology is great. Microsoft offers good implementation with service legal agreements and good practices.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

It's primarily used for access to the cloud or the virtual machines and to have a cloud-based solution that can handle tasks such as data processing, or for having data storage, and all types of other things.

The product is very flexible.

The performance overall is great.

It's a great advantage for a company to be on the cloud. It gives a company nice advantages.

The solution has proven to be quite stable so far.

The solution has been scalable.

There are no new releases per se; the solution simply adds on more services over time. 

The solution needs to offer more data analysis services. It would be extremely helpful to Azure's clients if they had more of this.

I've been using the solution for about a year or so. I believe it's been around 12 months. It hasn't been that long.

The stability of the solution has been very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

So far, we've found the scalability to be pretty good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease.

We have about five people working directly on the solution currently.

We haven't really dealt with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I've never had any direct interactions with them personally.

There isn't really an initial setup. It's on the cloud. You don't really have to deploy anything or set anything up.

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

As we are on the cloud deployment model, we're always on the latest version of the solution. It is always automatically updated for us.

Overall, I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with its capabilities so far.

In general, I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

We use Microsoft Azure for blob storage and for a lot of the components that they have inside the cloud.

The integration with Databricks is the most valuable aspect of the solution. It's easy to use and to put on the pipeline. Data Factory and Databricks together build a pipeline. They really integrate very well.

The stability is very good.

The solution is comparable to AWS in terms of pricing.

The design of the platform is not so easy to navigate. It's not very user-friendly.

Some services are more difficult to use in AWS and GCP. I have projects on the three clouds, and some things are easier to do on AWS. On the other hand, using Databricks on Azure is easy, as they are integrated well. However, some products are more difficult to use than other products. 

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable in terms of performance.

We have about 30 people using the solution.

I don't really deal with technical support. I'm the data scientist manager. The engineering team would be the ones that would reach out for help if they needed support.

In terms of deployment, each product requires a number of staff to deploy the model of machine learning or to build the stature to consume the data. It really depends.

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.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We deployed the solution in multiple ways. We've used the solution both on-premises and on the cloud.

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

We primarily use the solution as a platform for our applications and security.

The application gateway is very good.

We like the WAF feature.

The product has been quite stable.

The scalability potential is very good.

Technical support is very good.

The configuration process is very minimal and happens very quickly.

The solution should emulate what MuleSoft is doing. At the moment MuleSoft has a lot of other features compared to Azure API integration. Just the coverage of the features, for example, could improve. Azure should offer more coverage of the features.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

The solution scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

We have about 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We do have plans to continue to use the solution and may even increase usage in the future.

Technical support has been good overall. They are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of service we receive.

I don't really have experience with other solutions at this time. I typically work with Azure.

There isn't much of an implementation process as the solution is in the cloud.

However, you do need to do some configurations in order to ensure it's set up as you need it to be. This part of the process takes a minimal amount of time.

We have about 60 to 70 people who can handle deployment and maintenance within our organization.

While I could handle the process myself, in our case, we had a network architect handle the configuration process.

I'm a consultant.

As we are using the cloud version of the solution, we are always using the latest version as well. It updates automatically.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are using it for disaster recovery and application hosting. We always have its latest version because it is cloud-based.

It is easy to use. It is also stable.

Its subscription price could be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is stable.

We have about 40 users of this solution.

Their technical support is fine.

We used Google Cloud. We switched because we're a Microsoft Partner.

I didn't do the installation, but its installation is easy. For its deployment and maintenance, we have two engineers.

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

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.