Microsoft Azure Reviews

I'm the technical manager of our company and we are customers of Microsoft. 

We're able to provide our customers with what they want and very quickly.

This solution is quick, fluent and elastic. It's very easy to build a new service and get it into production. 

The solution is too expensive.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, it's one of the main advantages. 

Customer service is pretty good for what I need. 

The initial setup is not very complex. It's quite straightforward to get a new platform and be in production. We carried out the implementation ourselves. We have 350 employees and everybody uses Azure. We have four IT professionals dealing with maintenance.

We spend around $10,000 per month on licensing and that's just for Azure. In addition, there is a per user charge for using Office 365.

The policy of the company is to use Microsoft products. We took a look at Google and AWS, but very quickly decided to go with Azure. It's a well-known solution and the decision was taken by the finance department.

Stability and simplicity of use play an important role, so I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We have our data lake on it. In terms of deployment, I believe we have a hybrid deployment.

We can temporarily build out an environment for different scenarios, such as testing, and when testing is done, we can shut that environment down. So, we do not have an overhead in our own data center.

The ability to scale down is a big thing.

It can be improved in terms of ease of billing or monitoring of the billing. That gets to be a little difficult.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is absolutely stable. Microsoft doesn't want to sell something that isn't.

Its scalability is excellent. You just turn something on, and it is there. We have not made any reservations on it. We can scale up and scale down as needed. There is nothing that we have that is a commitment.

We probably have about 500 users, and they are administrators, developers, BI folks who actually manipulate it and create reports, and then we have end-users for the data. They are the people that use those reports.

In terms of the plans to increase its usage, right now, we're going through a merger, which will impact the data a little bit. So, we are in a holding pattern in terms of scaling up anything until that merger gets completed.

We go through a third party for that, and their support is really good.

We were fully on-premise with some SaaS platforms, and we then moved to Azure for a part of that.

It was complex, and that was mostly because of the security needs. We had to understand how things fit together.

The original deployment, just for testing, took about half a day, but to really get it going and to be able to allow access to people, other than the administrators, took more time. We're a financial institution, so we had to have everything monitored and secure. It probably took about four months to get it functional on the production side.

We used a consultant. They were excellent. They knew exactly what they were talking about. They were able to give us not only what was needed presently for our deployment but also the things to think about as we let the environment grow in the future.

For its deployment and maintenance, I've got security folks who watch what's going on. They make sure that only the right people are getting the right data, and it is not being allowed to folks who shouldn't have access. I have nothing public-facing on it. I've got administrators. I've probably got three people in security and five people in the administration. We're a 24/7 business, so it is split across all of that time.

Originally, when we implemented it, it was basically in a like-for-like way, which is not the way the platform is designed. So, once we were able to really get in there and figure things out, we figured out that we could use a much smaller footprint. That helped us out quite a bit in terms of a return on investment. We are seeing probably about 75% of the regular data center cost in Azure, so there were 25% savings, but we could see that go down as testing was being eliminated over different platforms.

Currently, we do not have anything reserved. There are no reservations that we have built into the Azure environment, so all of our licensing is on a consumption basis. As things spin up, those licenses spin up.

In terms of the additional costs incurred beyond the standard licensing fee, such as for operations, it's kind of tough for me to judge because I already had a fully-staffed operations team in a fully on-premise platform environment. So, we didn't spin up anybody extra for that. It just changed what they were doing.

We evaluated other options. We decided to go with Azure because we understood the licensing and VMs and how all of that worked together. Prior to the merger, we were looking at bringing the platform onto AWS. It wasn't that we were necessarily exclusive; we just felt that this was our best first step.

I would advise understanding what data you're going to be putting out there, and what your security requirements are for that. You should be ready to have a workshop so that everyone involved knows what's going on. Get a good understanding from the accounts payable team about how the payments are coming in and how to monitor them.

I love the product. From a procurement standpoint, I don't have a lot of control over it. Unless we've got some contracting of what we plan on doing, I don't have a lot of control over licenses, etc. An administrator can just go out, do it, and put the licensing in place, and then it is like you've got to pay for it. It doesn't function well in a P2P type of environment.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

I work for a Naval Shipyard. We build fighter ships for fighter aircraft. The Navy is our sponsor. Everything that we do is Navy or Navy-related. A lot of what we do is classified; however, I can say that we do some robotic AI work. 

Microsoft is our corporate authentication piece, so everything has to authenticate to Microsoft Azure. Everything in the whole entire company has to authenticate there. Even if you're building something, you have to be leading up to the point where it's going to authenticate to Microsoft. They are the vendor of choice, as far as authentication, but they're not the vendor of choice as far as all things at the shipyard. 

Our entire organization uses this solution. Size-wise, we're similar to a small city.

No features really stand out in particular. The reason that we use Microsoft Azure is that Microsoft has left us no choice — that's what I would say. If you use Microsoft, you've been curtailed in your on-prem data center. There are certain things we can do with Azure on-prem that we can't do on the cloud. We're now fully in the cloud. But even most of the Office products, which are in Office 365, are still on-prem. I came to this company to do cloud, but the company isn't ready to go to the cloud. It sounds like upper management is going to be changing some of the business structures. The better information I can give upper management, as far as our features and capabilities, will help them to make better business decisions. That's kind of where I am currently.

The support, the cost, the way they have the tiers, this could all be improved. For example, our company has been purchasing Microsoft Office 365 cloud licensing for approximately five years, and we do not have any production. We have five divisions and these divisions have different classification and levels of data. This company has changed hands over the years. We now lead the was as far as IT, but the corporate office didn't do a top-down infrastructure. It's a long story, but the way that we do things is not the way that everybody else does things. Just because others are moving to XYZ doesn't mean we're going to go there today. We might look and see how everybody else is doing everything, and once we decide we're ready to go, then we'll go. It might be 10 years later. It might be next week, but we don't follow the crowd. We follow the Navy.

I have been working with Microsoft since the very beginning.

Although I am not the administrator, there are some things that are kind of quirky. The biggest problem is that we're a really, really, really big SharePoint user. Everything that's 100% SharePoint online, is not a one-for-one into the SharePoint that we have on-prem. 

Security is a problem, that's why we only allow web products for Office 365. SharePoint doesn't give us everything that we need. These are a few of the drawbacks for us.

Scalability is complex, but only because our company is complex.

Support depends. For the professional services, they're usually pretty good.

For other divisions, the support hasn't been that good. Anytime we have problems and we try to ask for support, what we paid for is one thing and what we're getting is another thing. Because of this, we often have to renegotiations with Microsoft. 

The initial setup is very complex because we're a complex corporation.

The review board has actually approved all of the Microsoft Office 2016 products and applications. We have the licenses, however, we're not using them.

Teams is the one collaborative product that everybody wants to use. We've approved Microsoft Teams on the web only. Because of our security constraint, we don't want our users to use every feature that's actually on Teams. We don't want to allow third-party vendors to use that application in order to get into our environment. 

For example, you can share your screen, but I can't share my screen. I can share an application if it's been approved, but I can't share my screen. The only way I can actually talk to you is if we talk about topical issues that you would read about in the newspaper or something like that. I can't tell you anything that's company proprietary.

Right now we're looking at Microsoft TFS, Azure on DevOps. However, all of the features have to be configured by someone. It's not that ADO can't do it, it's just that it would take a lot of time — we'd have to have someone physically come in and do it. That would require Microsoft Professional Services which costs a lot of money. Often, people can just buy stuff off the shelf when they want to use another product. For example, all the ALM tools actually integrate with TFS. So, if we have a product that already has that capability, why are we purchasing those new products? Why are we doing a POC for that? So that's what kind of hat I wear here.

If you're interested in going with Microsoft, my advice would be to do it. Everybody's using Microsoft.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven.

The problem is that I'm an old Microsoft engineer. I like to build it the way I want to build it.  I don't want it to be SaaS. I liked the fact that you could build your servers in the AWS environment and build out the servers the way you want. They're actually taking away a lot of the applications. More and more companies are switching to SaaS or IAS, etc.

Now, the structure is going towards SaaS. I think I have a three-year lifecycle on my licenses and then I will have to drop or either migrate my data to SaaS. It's probably cheaper for people to go that way, but it gives you less flexibility. There's probably more security, but you're depending on the vendor's security or however they have that set up. You lose a lot of your flexibility when you go into SaaS.

We have deployed the NMS network monitoring system in Azure. We can monitor the network through it. There is no need to deploy an NOC (Network Operations Center) in my country. If we use Audiovi and Airspace there and install the NMS network element and Microsoft, everything is configured in Azure. Configuration is done remotely from anywhere. By entering Azure, we monitor the NMS network.

The stability could be improved.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. 

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward and user-friendly. 

Azure offers a trial version, which you can use for free before proceeding to payment.

We are using the free version.

I recommend the solution to use it. This solution is cost-effective, with high uptime and zero downtime.

We use the solution to set up access to process queuing, configure virtual instances, obtain a domain name, acquire the necessary certificates, and deploy the web server to the internet.

Microsoft Azure has proven to be beneficial for our organization due to its quick deployment capabilities. Setting up virtual machines or any required infrastructure is fast. 

The tool needs to improve its navigation. 

I have been using the product for two to three years. 

Microsoft Azure's stability depends on the resources allocated. If you provision sufficient resources, it tends to be stable. However, choosing lower resources, like two gigs of RAM and CPUs, might lead to less stability.

The product is scalable. My company has five users. 

I haven't contacted the technical team yet. 

Microsoft Azure's deployment is straightforward for me, given my experience and understanding of the Azure system. It is not difficult for me to handle.

The tool's deployment was done in-house. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We had a cloud migration project from on-premise to the cloud. We used various components like Azure’s cost calculator to provide the ongoing running costs.

SQL Server has been most beneficial for our client’s workload.

Everything needs improvement. The tool must constantly improve to provide a better experience. The security must be improved. The scalability could also be improved.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten. Our clients are medium to large businesses.

I rate the ease of setup a five out of ten. The product is deployed on the cloud. The deployment took a few hours.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten. All cloud services are expensive.

I rate the solution’s ability to support our client’s business growth a seven out of ten. We don't get direct support from Microsoft. I rate Azure's integration capabilities a seven out of ten. I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The solution has high stability.

We have reported some bugs we encountered, and it would be good if those bugs were resolved more quickly.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for more than one year.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Currently, we are happy with how the solution scales. Around 60 users use the solution in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup was quite easy, and you can get support to help you with the installation.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.

We use management tools for APIs. A few people were involved in the solution’s deployment and maintenance. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

Our people are familiar with Microsoft Azure, and we use it for our day-to-day operations.

We use Microsoft Azure for operations, email, and office applications.

The solution’s learning curve could be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for two to three years.

Microsoft Azure is a stable solution.

Around nine people use the solution in our organization.

We contact our local partners so that they can help us with our issues. For some difficulties, we try forums and open support. We don't contact enterprise support because we don't have it.

The solution’s initial setup is very straightforward.

We implemented Microsoft Azure through an in-house team consisting of two to three people. The solution’s deployment takes a few weeks.

Microsoft Azure is deployed on the cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.