Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

The solution is used to manage our databases in the cloud.

The hardware is all managed by Microsoft.

The pricing plans when using multiple Microsoft solutions are complex and have room for improvement.

I am currently using the solution.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup depends on the requirements but is easier than the on-prem SQL.

I have seen a return on investment.

The pricing is flexible and can be adapted based on our requirements but the pricing options are complex especially if we are using a VM.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance is minimal and can easily be done.

I suggest researching the solution on Microsoft.com where there is a good learning platform before using the solution.

Our primary use case for the solution is for applications. We get many applications in the environment, and most applications use Microsoft SQL, Azure SQL, and DBs, and a few use Postgres SQL. So primarily, the focus is to connect with the DB team and have a specific expert in the SQL environment.

We find the uptime and multi-region features available. Additionally, the dashboard is valuable.

The solution can be improved by reducing the constraints available on cloud and improving support response times.

We have beee using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. I rate is as nine out of ten.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. They are knowledgeable but sometimes take a while to give solutions. I rate customer service and support as seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. I rate is as eight out of ten.

I rate the solution as eight out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by reducing the constraints on cloud and improving support response times.

I use the solution for database maintenance. 

The environment is user friendly and there is good flexibility for adding modules or features. 

The solution effectively handles storing and maintaining information in databases. 

The solution requires familiarity with its language so can be tricky. A simplified language would be appealing to users. 

A more user-friendly format for certain modules is desired. 

The application and interface can be a bit heavy to install.

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. It takes a bit of knowledge about the process but then is really easy.  

I have not needed technical support. 

The setup can be a bit of a challenge until you get used to it. Once you have familiarity with it, setup is okay and takes about 30 minutes. 

A colleague assisted me with implementation. 

I recommending using the solution because it is effective and user friendly. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use this product to implement solutions for clients, so the use case can vary. For example, we built a web-based application for a government environmental protection agency. They issue permits to prospective applicants looking to site factories and other business facilities.

The solution allows us to bring automation to previously manual processes. Payment for permits is made online which eliminates discretion and fraud, and the wider process is streamlined. 

Because the solution is cloud-based it's highly manageable, it makes maintenance of logs, space, storage, and backups much easier compared to a traditional SQL server installation.

If the product could support applications requiring an SQL server for installation, by using SQL Azure as a backend, that would be useful.  

The solution is highly stable.

The product is absolutely scalable.

I was satisfied by the interaction with technical support for this solution. 

Positive

The solution is very easy to set up.

With one being expensive and five being competitive, I would give the product a four out of five as it's relatively competitive. It is also important to note that pricing is based on usage.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I have used SQL Azure for the backend tier application. If the customer has the flow change application with an application service, they will use the backend. I always suggest using SQL Server and Azure.

The backup solution in Azure is great, the firewall settings in SQL are very easy to use and work very well. Additionally, the turning process is very good and has improved the SQL services and queries.

SQL Azure could improve by adding more features.

I have used SQL Azure within the past 12 months.

I have found SQL Azure to be stable.

The scalability of SQL Azure is very good.

The support of SQL Azure is very good.

The implementation of SQL Azure is simple.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

Our core business is to make mathematical models for production and solutions. We don't develop or use software. The data comes with the Excel format stored in SQL and we write complex queries about the data and run it in our models. Our data is not sensitive and it's a matter of having a server for storage. I'm a software engineer.

SQL Azure is efficient and very easy to use. The programming facility is very good and the solution is great at solving problems. 

SQL Azure could offer a lot more services and applications. I'd also like to see some tools that we could use on the SQL Server for data virtualization. That would be an improvement. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

We don't run critical data and haven't had any issues with the stability. 

We have a lot of experience and good programmers and IT administrators in the company, so we haven't needed customer support. 

Our implementation was straightforward and carried out internally. We have 10 users of this solution, the majority are in production and engineering, with a couple in software engineering. 

Our license is pay-as-you-go and we pay around €200 per month. You need to keep an eye on this because with scaling the cost can increase quite quickly. 

This solution is more expensive than some others, but not as expensive as Amazon, Google and Oracle, which all have a lot of extra costs involved. 

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We provide managed services using SQL Azure to our end-clients. The price of services is fixed, and we manage the resources according to their needs.

The on-premise SQL Server licenses can be used since it is on Azure, so it's a significant savings for the customers.

SQL Azure's performance monitoring features need to be improved. It has a pricing calculator, but it would be great if we could get a rough estimate of the pricing based on fewer parameters, like the data size and the scale of the company. 

I started working with SQL Azure about six months ago.

I haven't had any stability issues with SQL Azure, but I've heard that there are frequent down times.

SQL Azure is perfectly scalable. 

I haven't had any complications setting up SQL Azure.

Microsoft controls the licensing for SQL Server and even for the other vendors. They don't play fair with AWS. If anyone wants to migrate to AWS RDS, Microsoft won't let anyone reuse the on-premise SQL Server licenses on AWS. You would need to repurchase those licenses. So it's cheaper to migrate to Azure instead if you already have an on-prem SQL Server license. The Azure platform itself is also much cheaper than AWS. So when you factor in the SQL Server licenses, it's as much 10 times cheaper than AWS RDS. I'm talking about the SQL Server RDS.

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10. To anyone thinking about adopting this solution, I would recommend that they first decide what applications they need to migrate to Azure. Then you need to estimate the cost. All cloud vendors charge for incoming traffic, especially Azure, and it costs a lot. Around 500GB of data might cost a few thousand dollars.

We use a relational database management system and 90% of the projects I've worked with have used SQL Server. We are partners with SQL Azure. 

The main valuable feature is the auto scaling. In addition, the security features they've implemented on cloud make it a little easier compared to on-prem SQL, they're great. It enables added scalability, and costing can be tweaked and made more reliable, flexible and cost effective.

I think SQL could be improved in terms of ease of use for developers when it comes to performance. For example, enabling suggestions or auto-tune performances, providing results which are higher level recommendations. I know there are tools that performance analyze, but I personally find it to be overly complicated. If they look at performance assistance, add-ons or plugins that might help the developer, focus can be on business logic rather than performance. This is an ongoing issue for me and I'd like to see developers given the flexibility to change those recommendations, it would simplify things. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

SQL's stability is dependent on where it's hosted. 

If you're going into a cluster with multiple width or multiple SQL Servers, deployment becomes a little more tricky. In general, though, the initial setup is relatively easy. 

I recommend this solution and I rate it an eight out of 10.