Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use it for various services and business applications. 

It is stable and scalable. It is useful for many applications and services, such as SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, and OneDrive.

They can add more documentation about the solution.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 100 people in the organization.

Their technical support is good. There are no problems.

It is easy to set up.

I would recommend this solution. It is a good solution.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We are using Microsoft Azure to access the Azure cloud database.

It's a flexible solution.

We need more customization and support for doing so.

I would like to see more customization on the DevOps side.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately two years. The organization has been it for more than five years.

We are working with the current version.

It's a stable solution.

We plan to continue using it in the future.

Technical support is very good.

The installation is straightforward.

If you want to install it, it would have to be on a VMware virtual machine.

If you have some experience, it doesn't take much more than thirty minutes to an hour to complete the installation.

I completed the installation myself.

This is a good product and I recommend it to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

This year, we built our own data center, and we use this solution to extend it into the cloud.

We have implemented the ExpressRoute connection, which is an established circuit between the local provider and the Microsoft network edge. This leads you directly to the Microsoft data center.

The digital workload transfers from on-premises here to the Azure cloud, which is a hybrid model. We have two different zones in Azure. One is for the intranet, and the other is for the internet.

The most valuable feature is the performance for our digital workloads.

At times, the support is terrible. It is not bad all of the time, but many times when we have contacted them, there are juniors without refined knowledge. We have had instances where it takes a long time to solve just a single problem.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for the past two years.

The stability depends on the customer. They decide the compute and other things, such as the level of support. If they take premium support then the SLA given by Microsoft is higher than when you choose a virtual machine without premium.

At the moment, we are reviewing and studying how to migrate our full workload to the cloud. We have one datacenter with more than 120 virtual machines and we are learning how to do the migration. Once it is achieved, the hybrid model we have can become a public model.

Our design was complex because we wanted it done in a certain way. There were lots of things to be done. We just experienced problems in the firewall's compatibility with Azure because when you implement a firewall, it's not as straightforward as in the case when you implement it on-premises. This led to some challenges and we had to troubleshoot the deployment of one firewall for a full month.

Even the local providers did not have experience with how to deploy that one firewall, which is why we spent so much time troubleshooting. It turns out that when you deploy a firewall on-premises and you want to migrate to the cloud, there are certain considerations that you have to keep in mind, which makes it more complex.

For our second firewall implementation, it was faster and better.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

This is definitely a product that I recommend, but it has to be done smartly. Not everything can be migrated and you shouldn't try to migrate everything as-is. It has to be done properly and people have to understand how services that are to be migrated need to be done. Also, there are some services that should not be migrated because it is better to keep them on your own cloud. This should all be studied in advance.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are a consultancy company. We provide technology solutions for our clients. We use Microsoft Azure to provide infrastructure for our clients. 

Active Directory is a good feature. The infrastructure features that Azure provides are also good.

There should be more language options for the Azure Functions apps. It supports programming languages, but there are only a few options. It could have more programming languages. 

I have been using this solution for one year.

It has good stability. It has an availability of 99,9%.

It has good scalability. It is an automatic process. 

It is a retail solution. Therefore, we have a lot of users. We probably have direct and indirect users in thousands.

I don't like their support so much. The support of Microsoft is not fast enough and should be faster. They have a lot of layers or levels. I used to get in touch with them through the Azure Portal.

The initial setup is easy. We have developed a DevOps automatic process, which makes it very fast to deploy. It takes just a few minutes.

I would advise taking care of the intermediate layers between your business and Microsoft. They aren't good.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten. This rating is based on the general features. If they put more programming languages, I would rate it a ten. It is a good product.

We are an SD-WAN vendor and we deal with a lot of networks. Microsoft Azure is one that I use regularly.

It's application migration. We run a network as a service from Azure. People are migrating to Azure, either it's MS SQL, SAP on Azure deployments or just running on Azure that we connect. 

The primary use case is to provide the SD-WAN to connect their remote offices and users to Azure and the data center.

Azure is pretty good and in fact, we have about 100 customers who are using Azure on our technology. These are some of the largest manufacturing companies in this region.

Azure is a good networking solution from a WAN perspective.

Features and functionality from a scale perspective, at least in the top three, are very compatible. These are AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

I would like to see all of the cloud providers be more compatible with each other. All of the big organizations, such as large manufacturing and banking and financials, use Azure, while other places will use Google Cloud to AWS. Compatability between these is important.

I have been associated with Microsoft Azure for the last three and a half years.

Azure scales like any other cloud.

As a partner, the technical support is pretty responsive.

We also use Digital Ocean, Google Cloud, AWS, and we are set up with multi-cloud.

I think Azure and AWS are similar in terms of pricing. Google Cloud is cheaper compared to either of these two. Google Cloud on the same sales chart. It is 30% to 40% cheaper than AWS or Azure. The Azure additional option is even cheaper than Google Cloud.

The initial setup was easy.

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

We use both Private Cloud and Public Cloud. For Banks it's generally through Private Cloud, otherwise, it's on a Public Cloud, as we deliver services as well on Azure.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We work with a lot of cloud-related products, including Azure.

The most valuable feature is cloud-based storage.

All of the cloud-based features are helpful.

I would like to see better integration with other products.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a few years.

I have not heard any complaints about the stability of Azure. Most likely, we will continue to use it in the future.

From what I understand, it is scalable. We are quite a big company and as such, we have quite a lot of users.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

In my experience, it has always been Microsoft Azure.

Azure is a good product and I can recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily have the solution working as an infrastructure as a service.

The focus on security is excellent. We really appreciate that about the solution.

The maintenance of the solution is very good.

The migration capabilities are great. 

The implementation is easy.

The solution could be a bit more intuitive and easier to use.

The documentation could be a bit better. It could be more clear and accessible. It would be good to know if the person answering the questions was a Microsoft employee or just another user.

The pricing in our region can be a bit high.

I've been using the solution for as long as three years at this point.

The solution is very stable. There's never any downtime. We don't deal with crashes or freezing. There aren't bugs or glitches. It works well.

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

Currently, we have 20 people that use the solution within our organization. We also have three or four admins.

Basically, the solution offers regional support and I'm okay with that. I don't need to worry about not getting the services I need. I've called and got support right away.  I'm quite satisfied with the level of service that is being provided to us.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's straightforward as the product is basically focusing on a pay as you go model.

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

We're a gold partner with Microsoft in Bangladesh.

We're always using the latest version of the solution as Azure constantly updates itself.

I'd recommend the product to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Mostly we've been happy with it, however, we do find the pricing  to be a bit high.

I primarily use Microsoft Azure for application development in our development environment.

The solution is pretty dynamic.

We prefer that we can configure our environment very quickly. 

We can add some notes if we need to. The testing capabilities are great. We can use the load balancing environment, and we can test a lot of different components from an infrastructure point of view. We can also test different scenarios within the application. 

The solution is very simple to use. It has a lot of great practical applications we really appreciate.

The licensing model is not ideal. It is not very useful in predicting actual costs. Sometimes we found that we could not accurately predict how much specific products will cost the company in the future. Just now, for example, we want to start using Log Analytics for Office 365, however, we don't know the final price. It's inconvenient for us as we cannot predict the budget and it puts off making a decision. For Microsoft, it's very disadvantagous.

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. If you could get something like logical groups of servers outside the mutual servers, it would be an improvement. 

Sometimes we want to start and do a penetration test. If, for example, we're planning new security scanning for our customers. You have to inform Microsoft that you want to start a penetration test. If you have regular scans Microsoft should allow regular scanning, without having to plan and to ask for approval from the Microsoft side every time. When it's meant to be a regular occurrence, it's very inconvenient for us.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. It doesn't cause bottlenecks or any other major issues for us. We find it to be reliable.

While we can dynamically add servers according to the user request, it's not profitable for us. Currently, it is possible to scale the solution. It just costs more to do so.

We are not so satisfied with technical support right now. Sometimes they cannot help us. We had problems with licensing and with the invoicing and so on and so on. Sometimes it's not very easy to explain the problems, the technical or non-technical, and they can't really assist us effectively.

In one instance, we had an issue with anti-spam on the service. We were trying to figure out why certain emails were being marked as spam. It took far too long to get to the bottom of the cause.

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.

We're simply Microsoft customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with it, although we would prefer if pricing was more transparent.