Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We are using it for business intelligence and analytics.

The ease of provisioning and administration is most valuable.

It should have better profiling capabilities. Its price could also be lower.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

We haven't had any outages yet, so it is pretty stable.

It is scalable. We haven't hit any limits yet, but we're not running huge workloads.

We haven't had a need for technical support.

It is easy. I'm busy setting up another one now.

I did it myself.

I would like it to be cheaper, but comparatively, it is reasonably priced.

We considered Postgres in AWS as well as AWS Redshift and AWS Athena.

I would recommend it. We're very happy with what we have. It is very familiar because of our experience with on-premise SQL Server. If you are used to working with SQL Server, it is a natural progression.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of 10.

The solution is primarily used as a database.

The solution is very easy to use. It's quite user-friendly.

The product is quite stable. The performance is great and it's reliable.

It's very good as an on-premises deployment.

We've found the solution to be scalable and easy to expand.

It would help if the solution was more secure. It's an aspect they could work on for future releases.

We've been dealing with the solution for many years now. It's been a while.

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

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

I've never directly dealt with technical support and therefore cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. Typically, if we have a problem, we just Google it and look for the answer online.

We don't install it. We just use it. It is my understanding that in Azure we don't install anything. We go on Amazon or Microsoft and make a machine. There's no installation.

You do need to pay a license fee in order to use the product. I can't speak to the exact price.

As we are planning to move to the cloud, we are looking at other options, including PostgreSQL or Microsoft SQL Server. It's my understanding that there is not a big difference between Microsoft SQL on Cloud and the Microsoft SQL Server. We still have lots of experience on Microsoft's SQL Server, and likely our company is still prepared to use Microsoft SQL on Azure, not PostgreSQL. On the other hand, a lot of ERPs nowadays on the market using PostgreSQL. So our developers in the company have experience with this product, PostgreSQL.

We use the product and we offer it to customers as well.

We are planning to move to the cloud in the future.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Our company prefers SQL Azure. We enjoy its capabilities. I'd recommend the product.

Until now, we don't yet have full experience with it and just we just apply it in very small scenarios - just for feasibility and to take some feasibility tests. We have yet to start converging our ERP. We're checking if it's good or available and if it will fit in some scenarios.

We don't have to manage it much. It is managed by Microsoft, which makes it easy for us because there is no admin overhead for managing the servers. 

It is also easily scalable. During peak hours, it can scale higher.

We have a very small database running on SQL Azure. We have not been able to load bigger systems on it. It is still not something that is feasible. All our heavy-duty systems are on SAP, and it should have more compatibility with other vendors such as SAP. 

Its price can definitely be lower. It is pretty pricey.

We've been using SQL Azure for about three years.

It is stable.

It is easily scalable. We have five people who are working with this solution.

Their technical support is very good for SQL Azure. Basically, based on my experience, we usually don't have any problem with support for Microsoft products. If we are seeking support for something like Linux or something that is not exactly a Microsoft product, it is a little disappointing.

Its price can definitely be lower. It is pretty pricey.

I would rate SQL Azure a seven out of ten. It works like any other SQL database, and it is pretty good.

Azure has multiple use cases. Organizations can use it for hosting infrastructure, for example. There are cloud services that you can utilize. The main purpose of the cloud is that you don't need to set up your own data center, and then you can just use the cloud platforms provided by Azure or AWS, or any other cloud. They all serve the same purpose.

The solution is a stable product. It has a lot of out-of-the-box services. It provides a lot of services that we would typically have to provision on-premise. 

It's easy to use in terms of their portal, which is very nicely organized.

It's a good platform all in all.

The solution has proven to be quite scalable.

We've found the solution to be stable. 

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

The solution should start covering more regions in Gulf countries and other regions. This is due to the fact that other cloud providers are not locally available. Yet this is what people require here. Their availability in the Middle East and Asia regions needs to improve.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. It's been a while.

We've found the solution to be very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

I'm from a technology provider. We provision these services and provide them to other clients. One of the infrastructure environments which we are provisioning on Azure would be used by probably approximately 8,000 to 10,000 users.

In terms of if we plan to continue usage or not, we are just building it on Azure right now. So it will be live in a year or two, something like this.

Technical support is really good. Microsoft support is pretty knowledgeable and responsive. We are happy with the level of service we receive from them.

The solution is a cloud product. You don't need to install anything. There is no installation process to deal with.  

All products are licensed. The cost depends on someone's usage space. The more you use it, the more you pay. Some are billed in terms of fixed cost. For example, if I provision some work with a machine that I pay for it, even if I don't use it. There are multiple ways you could potentially pay.

We are partners.

We are working on the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution. There are not many cloud providers. Azure and AWS are some of the top providers. These are the two which compete with each other, and both of them have good services. That said, I would recommend Azure for sure.

I'm in charge of the development of our IT solution and I am an implementer of Azure. 

I started with Azure SQL because it's a cheaper solution. It's a good cloud solution, very easy to use on any platform and works well. Technically it's very good. 

I would like to have more tools for feedback. I find that there are a lot of things offered in other solutions that don't exist in Azure SQL. There are also tricky commercial issues. When you use Google or Amazon, you know exactly how much you will pay. With Microsoft solutions, you don't know, it's very unclear and impossible to get anyone on the phone. 

It's the commercial support that is lacking with Microsoft. 

From a commercial perspective, I would rate this solution very low. From a technical perspective, I rate the product an eight out of 10. 

We are using it for processing financial transactions. We have its latest version.

Azure Portal is most valuable.

Service Broker should be added in Azure Cloud. Service Broker is currently available only in the on-premises version.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have six users and two people in our technical team for its deployment.

I haven't used their support. I have only used the online material, and that's complete.

We used PostgreSQL, which was on-premises.

It requires a license. As compared to its competitors, such as Oracle, it is affordable and reasonable.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

We normally use it for development and other services. We have on-premises as well as cloud deployments, but it is mostly deployed on the cloud.

Its easy usage is the most valuable. 

It can have more dashboards for monitoring, which would naturally help a lot. Other than that, everything is okay.

We have been using this solution for the last ten years. 

It is definitely stable.

It is scalable because it is in Azure. We have around 50 to 60 developers who access it.

We have contacted their technical support. Sometimes, we take support from Microsoft, and sometimes, we take support from our partner.

We have been a partner of Microsoft, so we have been using Microsoft solutions.

It was easy to install. There was not much challenge with the setup.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

We use it as a backend product. We are using the Managed Instance and the SQL Database.

The backup features are the most valuable.

Its compatibility with existing applications can be improved. Its compatibility is currently a little bit imbalanced.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

It is pretty good. It seems very stable.

It has good scalability. We have about a thousand users.

Technical support was very good. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is pretty easy. The deployment took about a day.

It is a good product for any new development or organization.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten. It is working fine right now, and I am pretty happy with this solution.