Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We use the solution to create a relational database for a client. They were running SQL on-premise and wanted to migrate to Azure and create a single data warehouse.

The best thing about the solution is that it is tightly integrated with Azure Functions and Azure App Service, making it easy to deploy to the cloud.

The solution has a fully managed server, so the users have limited control over the underlying infrastructure. The customization options and flexibility are limited. The pricing structure is a bit complex because there are different pricing tiers based on database size, performance level, etc. 

Although the solution integrates well into Azure’s ecosystem, it has limited capability and is incompatible with many third-party applications or tools.

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

The solution is pretty stable. I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have struggled to scale up the instances at times. Around 80 to 90 people in the organization use the solution.

The initial setup is very easy. Anyone who understands SQL can set up the solution.

The implementation time depends on the type of database we set up. It took us less than a day to deploy the solution. If we have a simple scenario, it will take less than an hour to set up the solution once we have all the subscriptions.

Good documentation is available on SQL, so we do not need a vendor team to deploy the solution.

We have seen an ROI on the solution. Cloud-based services reduce infrastructure cost straightaway. The solution provides scalability and flexibility. 

Also, a subscription-based learning model can be cost-effective. The ROI will vary depending on an organization's needs and usage pattern.

There is no licensing cost for the solution.

I am using the latest version of the solution. Our client had data from websites like Flipkart and Amazon for product and price information, and they wanted a relational database between these. The solution is pretty competitive when compared to other relational databases. We could have used Amazon RDS, but SQL Azure is much better. 

The learning curve of the solution is minimal. If you plan to have third-party applications with SQL Azure, you may not be able to use certain features. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We usually work on a valuation basis. When a customer wants to get on to our cloud, we suggest SQL Azure to them.

The preset configuration switches we can select on SQL Azure should be made more liberal to work on. The licensing cost for the solution is very expensive and should be improved.

I have been using SQL Azure for eight years.

SQL Azure is a stable solution.

SQL Azure is a scalable solution. Around 30 to 40 customers are using the solution.

Their customer support is not ok at all because sometimes the tickets we raise don't get authorized.

The initial setup for the solution is easy. It takes around 10 to 15 minutes to set up the solution. The deployment of the solution is straightforward.

The ROI depends on the customer and the scenario.

SQL Azure's licensing cost is expensive.

SQL Azure is a cloud-based solution. We usually require one or two people to deploy and maintain the solution. I would recommend SQL Azure for other people who don’t want to manage their environment. The worst thing about Microsoft is that it has a very bad license agreement that nobody understands.

Overall, I rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

We are using SQL Azure for databases that are hosted in Microsoft Azure.

SQL Azure is reliable and scales well.

The solution could improve by allowing the export of the data more seamlessly. It is difficult to copy and back up data.

I have been using SQL Azure for three years.

I rate the stability of SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

We have approximately 1,000 people using the solution in my organization.

I rate the scalability of SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

The support is good.

I rate the initial setup of SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

The solution is expensive.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

Our customers in the bank sectors use the solution for their websites. Our private customers use the solution to customize their applications on the cloud because they do not want to buy separate hardware. Some of our customers also have their on-premise SAP hosted on Azure.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that our customers do not have to manage the solution. Partners manage and optimize the solutions for the customers. 

The solution is also better cost-wise because if we host on hardware, we will have to change the hardware after four or five years. Also, if there is an issue with the hardware, the responsibility falls on the IT department. Customers do not like these responsibilities. With SQL Azure, everything is safe and secure. The clients pay a subscription fee and have fewer responsibilities.

Azure does not provide features like RDS for Oracle that AWS offers. The solution has to scale up its expertise for hosting Oracle.

My organization has been a partner with Microsoft since 2008.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Almost ten to twelve of our customers are using the solution.

The support is good. We go to Microsoft for every escalation.

The initial setup is pretty easy. Our team is interested in working for Azure and other Microsoft products. We don't require much support from Microsoft for setup.

The deployment doesn't take much time. We only have to check for our client’s requirements. We can provide the services to the client within 15 to 20 days.

Our technical team manages the deployment. The team checks all Microsoft policies before discussing them with the customer. We draw up a proposal and then present it to our customers. We explain to our customers how their data will be added to Azure.

We may need two or three people to deploy the solution. Depending on the environment, the deployment takes one or two months or even 15 days. Once the deployment is done, the solution can be managed through a partner portal. We might also need two or three people from the customer’s organization to refresh or optimize the solution.

The price could be slightly cheaper. Our customers pay for licenses annually.

AWS secured much business in Pakistan because of RDS for Oracle. There is not much difference between AWS and Azure’s prices. AWS and Azure differ in price by a few dollars. Technically both solutions have different capabilities. AWS has a far better capability. People prefer AD authentication by AWS over Azure. We have Microsoft-certified trainers in Pakistan.

We have been asking our customers to choose Azure because they will get a lot of benefits by adopting a cloud solution. Since hardware is not easily available within Pakistan due to dollar disparity, a lot of people are choosing Azure. 

We have been pushing Azure very aggressively for the past four to five years. People continue to implement the solution despite policy challenges. One of our customers wants to host nine to ten applications on Azure. There is a lot of demand for AWS and Azure. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

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.