Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We use the solution as a customer database for travel desk applications.

The solution suits well for our server requirements. It doesn't require an extensive system to run. So, it is a fast, limited, and affordable database serving our business purpose.

They should include more accessible functions for image tooling. Presently, we are using optional features for it.

I have been using the solution for about two years.

The solution is moderately stable. I rate its stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We have around 200 solution users in our organization. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support team is good.

Positive

Previously, I used Microsoft's on-premises version.

The solution's initial setup was straightforward. I rate the process an eight out of ten. It took one or two days to deploy it. Since it is cloud-based, we followed the standard Azure mechanism.

The solution is moderately expensive. I rate the pricing a six out of ten.

One should be clear about their reporting environment. For instance, Microsoft ecosystem reporting supports only Power BI. Secondly, one should ensure they utilize more customization options than already issued.

I rate the solution as eight. It is a familiar product for users who already work on Microsoft environments. If you need a limited cut-down version, it also has an option for a single database.

We use SQL Azure for the SAP application, an accounting software that facilitates transactions between different departments. The financial trends we run on SAP are supported by SQL, which is the back end of that application.

The reason we moved to the cloud was for the convenience of not having any physical hardware to maintain. As a technical person, this has reduced the amount of maintenance I need to do, allowing me to focus more on backups since the Azure infrastructure takes care of itself. Additionally, this is cost-effective for the organization since we are not spending much time on servicing infrastructure. Furthermore, it is convenient because we only pay for the time we use the solution, and are not billed for the time we are not using it.

Microsoft could improve its documentation and support. Without the necessary knowledge and expertise, it can be difficult to navigate the platform and find a technical person to guide us through. There is not currently enough documentation available to make it easy to use. If I had not been certified in Azure, I would have faced a lot of difficulties.

I would like reports attached to my phone if there's an error that occurs within SQL Azure or if there are updates that need to run, I would like to receive notifications.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable. We only had one outage last year and it didn't even last for 30 minutes.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support has always been good, but recently I had two encounters, last year when I spoke to a consultant from Africa these people provided support, but it almost sounded as if they didn't have enough knowledge. They didn't have enough technical knowledge of my problem to call me back after they had consulted. The support didn't feel like it was Microsoft support contacting me.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and only took one day.

When looking at the long-term expenses associated with running software on an on-premises server, the costs are almost equivalent but when we include insurance for devices, onsite fees for servers, and other related costs, we may find that this is a cost-effective solution.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. I don't see anything wrong with SQL Azure. I believe it's actually an advantage because previously we had to install SQL solutions on a physical computer. The good thing is that has been translated onto the cloud and that makes it a very good feature. SQL Azure itself, is a robust application that does a lot and integrates with a lot of applications. The reason I like SQL Azure better is that it's easily accessible and the setup is almost exactly the same as we do on the physical machines, but the good thing is there's no machine to maintain the grid.

We selected SQL Azure because it was recommended to us by the safety provider of our accounting software.

I recommend the solution to others.

We have HR applications including a lead system and also traveling expenses. We're using SQL for items like that.

The solution offers good plugin capabilities. We're a Microsoft customer, so it fits in with everything else we work with. 

The solution can scale. 

From a user standpoint, there isn't really any need for improvement. 

We'd like the solution to be available on mobile phones. 

The product could be more competitive in terms of features, security, and scalability.

We've been using the solution for around three years. 

The scalability would be a bit better. That said, right now, I am happy with how it can scale. As a user, you always want it to be better; however, as of now, it's not too bad. 

I'm not sure how many people are using the solution in our company at this time. 

I've never used technical support services. I can't speak to how well they respond when a customer has an issue. 

We're a Microsoft customer. 

I'm not part of the development team. I'm not sure which version our company is on. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. While it's fine for use online, we'd like it to be more mobile. If it were on mobile, I would rate it higher. 

The primary use case is to pass services for applications of some customers, where they have maybe the front end in dot net and another language, and SQL service in Azure.

The administration console in Azure, all in one is the most valuable feature. Monitoring the transactions in Azure and the elasticity when we need to grow the databases for our customers.

I think that the cost management in SQL is not clear because we may use some tax to identify products, but in some cases identifying the transactions in SQL is not easy for some financial cost centers. Perhaps if in Azure cost management we have the opportunity to monitor the SQL cost in more detail, it will be helpful.

I have been using the solution for around four years.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

In some cases, our customers need to move forward with their SQL projects and when they try to budget in the Azure pricing calculator some costs appear that in the production environment are very different. This becomes problematic for customers when they use SQL Pass services.

We are an IT company, so I'm an architect for that company using Azure solutions. Many users in many companies use SQL. I estimate maybe around 1,000 final users and technical staff from each company are using SQL Azure.

We decided to implement some forms for different purposes. We needed to implement it on-premises, so we did this on Azure to support the data from the forms implemented on a SQL server, and on Azure on several databases. It's very easy. 

The solution is quite straightforward to set up.

It can scale. 

The solution is stable and reliable. 

I want the pricing to be improved. They should try to lower it for their customers. 

I've used the solution for one year.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. I can't say how much as I don't have a comparable use case on the cloud and on-premises. 

We have about five people using the solution right now. For now, we do not have plans to increase usage.

The support is good. They have a good document library. If there is a problem, we can figure it out. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not complex at all. For us, it did not take more than one or two hours. It was quick to deploy. 

We only need one person on hand for deployment and maintenance. They are a developer. 

We did not use a consultant for the implementation process. We have a lot of experience in Azure and a lot of systems in Azure as well. 

We have a yearly licensing fee we need to pay. It's not a cheap solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. 

Based on the experience I've had, I would rate it seven out of ten. 

We're using it for scalability. Everything is on Azure SQL for us. It is an enterprise application data warehouse, so all our applications are on this. It is useful for entire data warehousing. It is also good for microservices applications. We have its latest version.

It is good for scalability and high availability. It is also secure because of Microsoft's cloud investment.

It is easy to use because it is on the cloud. Creation or making it available through web services is super easy. Azure SQL can be quickly published as web services for APIs to connect with other applications. Because it is in Microsoft Cloud, you can easily integrate with Microsoft stack.

Its price could be better. It is expensive.

I am not sure if Microsoft Master Data Services is included in this. If not, Master Data Services can be integrated with Azure SQL. I have only used Master Data Services on-premises.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable. Microsoft has been in the market for quite some time.

It is quite scalable. It is a good choice for any kind of application database, data warehousing, or data lake. 

In terms of the number of users, it is being used by all users in our enterprise. For development, we have four to five developers, and we also have partners to help us.

Technical support is managed by Microsoft partners, which is good.

Positive

We have used Microsoft SQL Server on-premises. We are still using it, and slowly, we'll move to Azure SQL.

You don't have to install it because it is on the cloud.

It is expensive. Snowflake and PostgreSQL are cheaper than this. Google is also cheaper than Azure. 

Its licensing is on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is based on usage and storage.

I would recommend this solution. If anybody is using Azure Cloud, they should definitely use Azure SQL. Our strategy is to have all our applications on Azure, and we will keep using this solution. We will also be using it for our analytical data mart.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten. It is a good product, and it has all the required features.

We use SQL Azure for what we call an inspection round. Inspection rounds are mainly used by an inspector in the field to check the compliance of the equipment, like if a given machine doesn't have enough instrumentation. 

In any kind of plant, there is an inventory of assets. Most companies have an inspector who goes to the field to check the condition and record some indicators. The results of the inspection are recorded in our software. All the data from the inspection round is stored in our database in Azure. That is what we use the Azure database for.

We created a custom PaaS. It's not a pre-built device in the cloud. Azure components like SQL Azure and a web server are combined to create this solution. Our SQL performs better in that space than a readymade device.

The most valuable aspect of SQL Azure is the SQL language itself. It's open and everybody can use it at my company. Also, we thought in the beginning that the response time would be inadequate, but it's actually decent. It's much better than expected. Then again, I'm not a programmer, but that's what I hear from our development team. 

There are some characteristics called "joins," like "inner join," "full join," "left join," "right join," etc. It's a little confusing for some coders. I think that could be simplified. 

I'm in the analytic space, so I would introduce a higher level of coding using artificial intelligence. SQL is quite close to English. They could add a voice interface where you speak into it, and the machine writes the code for you. My weakness in coding requires something automated, so I can be more proactive. 

They should also simplify the security in Azure. We are using the cloud as a platform, so there is no physical infrastructure. We're using Azure components like databases and servers to create an application. Integrating those components in terms of permissions and security is challenging for us. Maybe there is a lack of knowledge on our side, but it's not straightforward. 

The data modeling is not good for me. There are better tools than SQL Azure when you need to create the abstract part of the database design. It's weak. It's not user-friendly, and the notation is specific to Microsoft. I believe we use a third-party tool for data modeling because it's easier to use. Communicating with that tool is easier than SQL Azure. The model is nicer.

I have been using SQL Azure for about five or six years. We started using the solution for one of our clients, a mining company, more than five years ago. They were the first customers to use our solution.

We don't have any issues with stability. The primary issues in the cloud are privileges, security, and integration between applications. That is a total mess for us. When we need to get the application servers access to the Azure database. 

SQL Azure is scalable.

I only contacted Azure support once, and it was decent. We asked some questions, and they replied. I cannot it say was great or awful. They met our expectations. 

Setting up SQL Azure is easy. Even I can do it. 

We pay around $1,200 per year for one customer based on what they currently use. It's mainly processing and storage. SQL Azure is a bit more expensive than other solutions. There are free databases, but they don't have the scalability of the Azure cloud. It might not be affordable for some companies, but it's highly scalable.

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others depending on their needs. It might be beyond the budget of some companies.

Generally, what I like about Azure as a cloud is the analytics you can apply on top of that data. Azure provides a number of high-performing solutions for data science and analytics. The main issue is that you need to build the architecture to create a product that provides value for your customers.

It's about imagination and creativity, and most of the tools are there. In my case, ease of use matters because I lack the knowledge to explore more, but our development team could do that easily. 

We use Azure SQL serverless or with virtual machines.

Azure SQL is used mostly by my clients for ETL.

The most useful feature of Azure SQL is the queries for manipulating the data, such as the tables and the storage processors.

Azure SQL can improve by adding more machine learning features like other databases, such as Cassandra or Cosmos DB.

I have been using SQL Azure for approximately three years.

Azure SQL is a stable solution.

The scalability of Azure SQL is good. However, it is limited by the infrastructure. The cloud version gives more scalability.

The support from Azure SQL is good.

I rate the support from Azure SQL a four out of five.

The initial setup of Azure SQL is of a medium level of difficulty. We need some expertise in installing, configuring, and deploying Azure SQL.

We have approximately 20 to 30 specialists for the deployment of Azure SQL.

The price in general of Azure SQL could improve.

We have enterprises in Chile, Peru, Spain, Italy, and Colombia that provide IT services. We use this solution every day to maintain new projects and use the on-premise and cloud versions.

My advice to others is to review alternatives to Azure SQL. For example, SQL Serverless, SQL with a virtual machine, or Azure SQL Instances.

I rate Azure SQL a nine out of ten.