Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure to host our software development solutions and solutions for reproduction.

We have many solutions running alongside Microsoft Azure that are mainly for the financial sector.

We use Microsoft Azure to host and develop.

It's great! It's very useful.

It has a separate environment for developers and developers' solutions. We have environments for PaaS and quality assurance, and we also have an environment where we can lend our solutions to our customers.

We like the Azure DevOps.

If you have large traffic amounts, Microsoft Azure will continue to provide our customers with the best storage experience.

It's very secure.

Microsoft Azure has incredible customization.

It's not user-friendly because it is made for developers. A normal user can't use it, but for a developer, it is a very friendly solution.

The initial setup can be improved. It should be simplified and made easier for developers to set it up.

I would like to see the use of Microsoft DevOps simplified. It's automation to develop and deploy software that is very difficult to use. It is so complicated and we need extra time to learn it. It is not easy. 

I have been working with Microsoft Azure since 2016.

We use the standard S3 applications.

Microsoft Azure is very reliable. It's a highly stable solution.

Microsoft Azure offers huge scalability. We can manage scalability automatically or manually. It is very fast and very reliable.

We have approximately 30 users in our organization who use Microsoft Azure.

The service is very good. They are highly technical and provide answers to things that are not easy to apply. Before the pandemic, at least, the support was good and very fast. 

We had some issues with support after the pandemic, where the replies took a very long time. Technical support could improve their response time. They should respond faster.

We use many Microsoft tools, such as Microsoft Teams, also Skype, and Google Meet.

The initials setup is difficult. It requires specialists. 

Similar to Google Cloud and Amazon Web Services, it is complex.

It can take six to twelve months to deploy this solution.

We had help from specialists to help with the complex setup. It is not easy for everyone.

I would suggest calling a specialist who is certified to help with the setup and the deployment, don't do it yourself. The specialists are reliable and can deploy the solution faster.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for single sign-on authentication.

We like that you sign in only once and that grants access to all of the Microsft applications, as well as others such as ServiceNow and SAP Concur.

Ease of use could be improved. You wouldn't just be able to use this solution without being trained on it.

We have Microsoft Azure for approximately five years.

We are always updating Microsoft.

It's been pretty stable. There have only been one or two instances where Microsoft went down. One time, it was the building's main operations center that was struck by lightning and caught on fire.

We have 20,000 users in our organization who are using this solution.

As we acquire other companies, we will increase the usage.

Technical support needs improvement. If you are able to get a rep then it's great. If not, you are left hanging.

Previously, we used Okta.

We switched over because we got the Enterprise package with Microsoft Suite.

The initial setup was completed by our internal Microsoft team.

Microsoft Azure definitely provides us with a return on investment.

Licensing costs for Enterprise are on an annual basis. In addition, we pay to have Gartner help us negotiate.

It is best to have a dedicated team because it is not easy to use and get set up or to get acclimatized in the amount of training that you need to become familiar with the solution.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We have an internal system we are currently building. We use machine learning, where we are training models for extraction. You send a document or an invoice and move it to Azure using an endpoint, and then you get the extracted information. That is what we are currently doing. 

It is a reliable solution that is easy to set up. 

1.One is not able to upload custom images in azure and not able to access windows client images. This can be improved

2. It moves your business’ compute power from your data center or office to the cloud. As with most cloud service providers, Azure needs to be expertly managed and maintained, which includes patching and server monitoring.

I have used Microsoft Azure within the last 12 months.

Microsoft Azure is a stable and reliable solution.

AWS- It was trusted at the time since it was the longest serving

The initial setup was excellent.

In-House

It is affordable compared to other vendors

Before choosing Microsoft Azure, we evaluated AWS and GoDaddy.

I would recommend this solution to new users. If you want to get a free subscription or trial, it is quite good. Even for an organization, it is good because of the number of requests they offer in the free version. There are many.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure an eight.

We use it for cloud adoption for medium and large companies. We are using its latest version.

It is really scalable and easy to use.

They should include a cybersecurity feature to improve the protection of the systems.

They could do better in terms of the pricing model. Its price keeps on changing. Their technical support can also be better. 

I have been working with this solution for a couple of years.

It is stable, and it works. It is not the best public cloud in terms of technology, but it does its job, and it does it well.

It is really scalable.

Their technical support is fair. It is something they can improve.

Its initial setup is very easy.

It provides a great ROI.

Its pricing model can be improved. It is variable, and if you do a simulation now, within a few months, the price can change, and your simulation would no longer be valid.

It is great for a new workload and if you are starting with new systems.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a seven out of ten.

We are using this solution for multiple purposes. For example, for a chatbot and for multiple authentications for service technologies we are developing.

The most valuable features of the solution are ease of use and the enhancements are continually being updated.

There could be more documentation and video tutorials to incorporate each and every feature. This way one can easily get the knowledge and implement it.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 40 developers using the solution in my organization.

The technical support is good. 

The installation is straightforward.

There is a license for the solution.

We plan to continue using the solution in the future and I recommend it to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to integrate with multiple versions of ServiceNow, for automatic ticket closure and ticket opening.

There are plenty of functions available that we have used extensively. It is a complete platform of services.

There was a time when the solution was updated on their side and all of our functions stopped working. This issue could be worked on to prevent it from happening in the future.
They must give us the information of when they are going to updates on the platform side so that we can take the appropriate measures on our side as well.

We would like to see more enhancements in the Azure Migrate services in the future.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable and has good performance.

I have all different kinds of clients, from small businesses to enterprises.

The setup was straightforward and the documentation is good.

The price of the solution is reasonable.

I rate Microsoft Azure a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to build VMs and create databases. 

We absolutely plan to continue using Azure in the future. We actually plan on increasing our usage.

Azure allows us to bring applications to life quickly. 

Microsoft Azure is very dynamic. 

The cost is something that could be improved. There's not much clarity regarding the price range. We'll create a VM and then at the end of the month, we'll receive a bill with various costs from different locations — it's confusing. 

Integration with other cloud environments can be tricky at times. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three years. 

Microsoft Azure is very stable. 

The support could be improved. On a scale from one to ten, I would give their support a rating of six.

The initial setup is very complex because of the landing zone. Only Microsoft can create the landing zone. Implementation is very fast; it only takes a few minutes. 

We implemented Microsoft Azure ourselves. 

The licensing costs are quite reasonable. 

My advice is to keep an eye on your usage otherwise you could wind up with a hefty bill. 

The biggest lesson I have learned is that Microsoft Azure is very dynamic — the environment is very dynamic.

Microsoft Azure is absolutely great. On a scale from one to ten, I would give it a rating of eight because it's user-friendly and very simple to use. All of the basic features are covered. Some things can be tricky, but there is always a simple solution.

I'm using the entire Microsoft Azure suite for storage applications and database applications.

I like the functionalities and the price. I'm very satisfied with Microsoft Azure.

It could be cheaper.

I've been using Microsoft Azure for at least five years.

It's a stable solution.

Microsoft Azure is scalable.

The price is good, but it can always be cheaper.

The fact is I, as a customer or anybody else for that matter, will value the choices in front of them before deciding. In this case, the functionality on offer and the price helped us choose Microsoft Azure. If I get something better in terms of these two variables tomorrow, I will certainly switch.

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure an eight.

We are a solution provider and Azure is one of the products that we offer to our customers. However, there is a problem. It is impossible to sell a cloud-based model here in Venezuela because we have strong inflation and most of our clients are immigrating to on-premises solutions.

The most valuable feature is the virtual machine.

The pricing needs to be adjusted so that the strong inflation in Venezuela does not prevent customers from purchasing it.

I have a lot of experience with Microsoft. I started using Microsoft 25 years ago. I have used it in all aspects, both on-premises and soon in Azure cloud.

This is not strongly done on-premises, but we have several approaches with Microsoft Azure.

We have approached our clients about using Kubernetes or Docker because it's cheaper when inflation is considered.

We are researching how we can migrate all old legacy applications using Docker. In Venezuela, the software installed with all of our clients is legacy. 

We have clients with Windows Server 2003, 2008, and applications with older operating systems who need to move to the cloud, but it is impossible because the cloud doesn't support those operating system versions. For this reason, we are considering using Docker to encapsulate the applications to see if it is feasible to migrate to the cloud or if we require new equipment on-premises.

Most of their software is not updated and won't be able to migrate to the cloud.

In Venezuela, we are having some problems with the economy regarding the exchange control with our currency. 

The best Microsoft product in my opinion Azure Stack Hyper-Converged Infrastructure or Azure Stack HCI. It's for working in hybrid mode.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for multi-factor authentification while sorting out the identities. We want to use this solution for as many applications for the authentification process.

One of the features I have found to be valuable is the scale set feature. We have been able to get good results scaling up and down our applications. Additionally, the dashboard is fuctional.

There needs to be better data security. There are organizations that do not want their data to be submitted to Microsoft, they should have strong encryption.

In the future, Microsoft should increase its data center percentage in Africa.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution has been stable.

We have found the scalability of the solution to be good. We have approximately 4,000 people using the solution in my organization.

If we are having a hard time finding a solution to an issue the technical support has been very quick to respond.

The initial setup is straightforward for me since I have done it before, for people new to installing it could experience some difficulty.

The solution does not offer very many free services which can become expensive. We are on an annual license.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We have a complete Microsoft ecosystem. Azure comes with a variety of parts such as infrastructure as a service and platform as a service or SaaS. We are using it for infrastructure as a service and software as a service as well, so both SaaS and IaaS are being used.

All of our solutions are being deployed on the Azure server. We use the Azure authentication functionality across our organization, which is a single sign-on functionality, so it is Azure-based. We also are incorporating the DevOps framework, which, again, is being integrated to Azure. Our complete backbone is being moved to Azure, and most of our systems are moving to the cloud version.

I think the single sign-on functionality and the ease with which you can deposit things on the cloud have been valuable.

Azure has very robust security functionalities and authentication features, which come with mobility, along with backup and credential checks.

Scalability is also very robust because you can deploy the solutions on the go, and along with that, it provides you an ecosystem to integrate with the existing Microsoft products. For example, we have Power BI, and it's very nicely integrated with the Azure cloud version.

The interface is quite user friendly and intuitive. The reporting is perfect as well.

Integration with other services could be much better.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for over two years now.

The stability is very good. As it is a Microsoft product, the reliability is very good.

Because it's a cloud-based solution, scalability is not an issue at all. We currently have over 200 development team members using Microsoft Azure.

Technical support staff have been responsive, and the support was good.

The initial setup was a bit complex. It was getting ruled out sometimes, but it was at a Pan-India level. So, it was expected to take some time; it took about 8 to 12 months. Overall, it was good.

I believe that we have a three-year license, and I'm happy with the pricing.

I think Azure works best when you have the complete Microsoft ecosystem. Then, you get the real value out of it. In my firm, we have the complete enterprise licensing model. So, we have an integrated ecosystem, which provides a very collaborative way of working, along with the ease of creating.

If I were to rate Microsoft Azure on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at nine.

It could be used for overall migration from on-premises systems for data ingestion to data processing, data modeling, advanced analytics, and high-end reporting. Microsoft Azure can be used to move from conventional, on-premises relational and traditional data systems and big data systems to the cloud.

I have found cost advantage and faster execution to be valuable features. Overall, Microsoft products are budget-friendly. 

The cycle development time is pretty fast, and there's very good coupling within the whole set of Microsoft tools, from the database to the ETL engine, ingestion through Azure Data Factory, then modeling with Synapse Analytics, and reporting through Power BI.

You also have the ability to integrate with external tools if required. For instance, if you don't want to model on Synapse Analytics, which is a Microsoft product, you can use Snowflake. So, it allows customers to adopt a hybrid approach of mix and match when needed.

As for improvement, I think better accelerators and better tools that can be used to migrate and leverage the existing models and data schemas are needed. 

Also, on the ETL side, we can convert data pipelines that are already setup on-premises and business tools that already exist. If we can migrate and automate these into Azure faster, it would be great. I think a faster migration path will help. There is a lot of scope for improvement in this area.

Better reporting capabilities would be good also, because as of now, Microsoft Azure has its own path with Power BI. However, better integration with other enterprise reporting platforms would help.

I've been using Microsoft Azure for two to three years.

Technical support is good for all cloud platforms since it is at a global level. So, it is very professional.

Installation is very fast and can take a few minutes to an hour. A lot of documentation is available, so it could be done in-house.

Microsoft Azure comes with a long-term license and trial licenses as well.

I would rate this solution at nine on a scale from one to ten.

The strategy we are employing is to adopt a hybrid approach rather than switching all at once. We are moving in small bits and having both environments for business continuity. Then, once we and the users are feeling more confident, we will totally switch to the cloud.

Right now we're designing our desktop solutions. I need, for example, to use a virtual desktop and I need to use infrastructure as a service. I am looking for other infrastructure as a service solutions as well,

We really like the infrastructure as a service and the data center as a service solution functionality. 

The backup data center and the business compute solutions for Azure are good. There are a lot of good hybrid solutions with onsite and cloud solutions.

The solution is very easy to set up.

The solution is very stable for Windows setups.

The technical support on offer has been very good.

The pricing needs to be a bit lower. It's an expensive solution right now.

In future releases, I would like to see Microsoft offer personal desktop environments in a virtual solution. Citrix, for example, now offers this as an option.

I only have some limited experience with the product. I've only been using it for about six months or so. It hasn't been that long.

For the most part, the solution is stable. It's great with the Windows solution, however, with Linux and other operating systems, I hope that it's okay. I don't know for certain. I've never tried it with others. For Windows, it is very good. When the customer has all-Windows solutions everything is okay. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

The companies we usually sell to are typically medium-sized. When it comes to scaling, the cloud solution is an elastic solution. I can scale it well. The customer can go up however high they want to go. The solution allows for that flexibility. It's easy to expand with the solution.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. I understand that if I need them I can easily reach them. They are available and responsive. I'd say we are satisfied with our solution.

The initial setup is not difficult or complex. It's pretty straightforward. It's easy. A company shouldn't have any issue with the process.

We sell the solution to our clients and it takes six months to one year to deploy it.

We would like to see Microsoft lower its prices a bit for their customers. It's a costly solution.

I'm a Microsoft reseller.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

While we are currently using the on-premises deployment model, we are considering moving to the cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. I'm already recommending it to various clients as a potential solution for them.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the solution.

We use the solution for executing the ADF pipelines through the database port. We provide the scripts in the database, we run it, and it goes through the ADF pipeline. Afterward, through the database command, the ADF pipeline will run and push the data into Azure SQL. 

I have found the solution to be flexible, easy to use, and the documents are straightforward to understand. For example, it is flexible, we have a single pipeline that has three phases, within approximately 15 minutes the records get transferred into this solution efficiently.

Additionally, the solution is well integrated with other solutions such as Power BI.

When we are doing transfers of records in large amounts, for example, petabytes of data or few long datasets, the performance should not degrade as it does. I am working on big data platforms like Informatica and others and even though there are terabytes of data being transferred it does it immediately. However, in this solution, I would like the performance to be there when building a large dataset to integrate the data.

I have been using the solution for the past three years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution to be scalable. We use Teradata for large data and we are building the pipelines for it, so far it has operated well. We have approximately 25 individuals using the solution in my organization.

The technical support is very good, if you have an issue they will be able to help.

I have used Informatica in the past and it has some performance advantages compared to this solution.

The solution does require a license.

I would recommend this solution to others and we are going to continue using it in the future. We have numerous clients switching to this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

I'm currently trying to build a new product for my company using Microsoft Azure. Prior to that, I was using Microsoft Azure on the cloud to deploy microservices using specific Azure services to host the microservices. But the most common Azure services that we're using is the App Service and relational databases. In terms of the application, the first one was just the Microsoft Azure application and the second one was an integration with Elastic Stack. I'm a software architect.

The user interface offers a good experience, it's better than Azure itself. The portal is great. Microsoft Azure has very good documentation for any kind of technical person.

Sometimes the Azure Calculator doesn't have a good way to do a higher estimate, because for any organization there are sometimes issues with the application sites, but I know that the logs are not the real time and there are issues with login synchronization. It cam sometimes take more than five minutes for that information to reach the Azure application side. I'd like to see integration with other lifecycle managing rules because with Azure DevOps, it's straightforward, but the system is painful sometimes. 

I've been using this solution for nearly five years, the last 12 months in this new company. 

In general, stability is good, but in the past month I had some issues with the connection to Azure resources, not just Microsoft Azure, but with Azure in general. Microsoft has an issue with its authentication system which has proved painful, because my applications were up and running, but I can't log in to make changes or see metrics. It's a lot better now, we've had the application down three or four times but it hasn't been critical. 

Scalability is good, I haven't had any issues with their configuration. I think we have around 600 concurrent users. 

I haven't used Azure support. They have good documentation, although I sometimes think that the examples on GitHub aren't updated. On the whole, documentation is good. 

We previously used AWS but we knew there was already a lot of experience with Microsoft Azure and their technologies and we wanted to use all the features for each service. Given that this is with government and the integration is with Microsoft Azure, we can use all the features and benefits of each service. Another issue is that they were using AWS with infrastructure as a service, but they redesigned this application to use software as a service and platform as a service. We dropped the use of infrastructure as a service and using the platform as a service, and it was estimated that it would cost less than with AWS.

I think the initial setup is straightforward. I have around 20 microservices, so deployment took probably two weeks. It took longer than a previous implementation which took several hours.

We did a quick check with cloud computing, but we didn't find anything really efficient outside of the Google Kubernetes Engine that was better than the Azure Kubernetes Service or the Kubernetes service in AWS. But it was just a quick check and it was documented.

I can sometimes see that Microsoft has poor training, but to be honest the whole training thing isn't good at a technical level. They are designed to be the entrance point and show the way you can create a web portal and database. But if they could offer an in-depth technical solution of Azure services that would be good. It's possible that Google has something about it and they can offer better learning than Microsoft sometimes does. Reading through their documentation can take some time. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

It is great for computer resource management at reduced cost. Also in a large environment, it gives you a lot of flexibility to provide different services, like disaster recovery and business continuity.

In terms of computer resource management and reduced cost, it is very, very effective. In large environments, it gives you a lot of flexibility to provide different services, like disaster recovery and business continuity with simple and great options because you don't have to spend a lot of time for maintenance, upgrades, and security. Also, Microsoft Azure provides a lot of services that can be managed by Microsoft like NetApp and SQL Server on a database.

Microsoft Azure has services such as ACS, Azure Container Service. This is very useful for improvements in running applications in a scalable environment. You will not need to spend time building the cluster on-premises, and you can improve your clusters with a lot of administration options.

I think Azure Active Directory and also the backup solutions provided in Azure need to be improved by Microsoft. The backup solution is not a very enterprise solution, and it is very simple. I think in comparison with other backup solutions like Nakivo and Veeam Backup, it can be improved to have a lot of options.

Along with this, one of the lack of options in Azure is managing antiviruses in virtual machines in the Azure environment. For example, if we have a lot of virtual machines on-premises and have to migrate them in Azure, there is no handy tool for the central management of antivirus software in all virtual machines in Azure.

On-premises, we have a lot of options like Kaspersky, Norton, and a lot of others, but in the Azure environment, you are limited to Windows ATP.

Windows ATP solutions are limited and can be improved by Microsoft, specifically the central management of the GUI for configuring agents on virtual machines.

I think Microsoft Azure should provide more innovation and new services to get better performance in the market.

The documentation for how to connect to CLI could also be improved.

I've been using Microsoft Azure for around three years.

It is very scalable and can be distributed to different regions.

I'm not involved in using technical support because I directly work with an Azure architect on my team who is responsible for providing support and leading the team as well as contacting the Microsoft support team. In general, however, I think, one of the best advantages of Microsoft services is the support team made up of technical engineers who help solve problems.

As for the initial setup, the GUI in Microsoft is very simple and very handy, but in Azure Container Service, it is not very handy and is very complex. You would need to go forward with CLI.

I would rate Microsoft Azure at eight on a scale from one to ten. 

We use it for virtual machines.

It is quick and easy to deploy. It is flexible, and we can deploy a resource anytime. 

We like and prefer the pay-as-you-go model.

Its pricing should be better. In terms of features, I am yet to explore the whole solution, and the current features seem okay.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

It is quite scalable. You can extend it both vertically and horizontally very quickly. Currently, we have approximately 50 users.

We haven't had support issues.

It is easy and quick to deploy.

It has the pay-as-you-go model. Its pricing should be better.

We didn't evaluate other solutions. We trusted Azure because it is a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has been in the industry for a long time. Microsoft has been providing solutions for businesses for a long time, whereas other vendors mostly provide solutions for consumers.

I would recommend this solution. We plan to keep using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We have a project with a company that needs support for their IoT devices. We're setting up some databases for them. That's all I can say about it because it's confidential. But we're using the HSM and the Key Vault for security purposes. A wider area or a wider group can connect to this public cloud for security and storage. We also have our own application implemented on that cloud.

It's easy to use, and it's scalable. If we want to grow our product more, we can do it. Because of the availability of different geographic zones, we can also have many places and regions.

Security could be better. Once there was an attack, and we couldn't get to the cloud to see the reports for about five hours. If we want to back up the application in storage, we can't have a firewall. For now, it's secure. I think the main problem was the configuration.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three or four months.

Access to the virtual machine on Azure wasn't always available, but the application was always up and running.

The product is super scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The pricing is better than AWS.

I would recommend this cloud computing solution. When configured and planned well, I think it's a very good product. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure an eight.

We have some services that are customer-facing that was put on a public cloud. We also have some of the applications that we use in-house, and we put that in our private environment.

Currently, because we have migrated our infrastructure to the cloud, we boosted some of our core applications in the Windows virtual environment. We also make use of it for our call center solution.

I like a lot of features. For example, the Windows virtual solution has helped in such a way that our client-based application was converted into a web-based version through the use of the Windows Virtual Desktop. It makes life very easy for our users when working remotely from anywhere. Because of Azure, the work from home policy makes our work feel seamless. We make use of SharePoint, and collaboration has been very smooth and wonderful. We also make use of Microsoft Teams. It's been wonderful. It's been very awesome.

With Microsoft, our only concern is exchange rates because we're paying in dollars. It's very expensive for us because of the exchange rates. It would help if they partnered with someone locally so we can pay in our local currency. That's the only major area that we wanted them to look into. At least for exchange rate purposes, they should try to do something.

We have just migrated our infrastructure. I have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of months.

I can guarantee that it's 100% reliable.

It's very easy, and we don't regret this step at all. It's very scalable, and sometimes if we don't need the VM that we set up, we can quickly decommission it. Then if you wanted it back up again, we could bring it up quickly. It's very scalable. We have an average of 50 users at the moment.

Technical support is very good. I like that they have local partners and local support in our own country and not someone in another geographical region. When we wanted to do the setup with the Microsoft partner, we had some issues, and we reported it to them. They were very responsive. 

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The implementation was straightforward because Microsoft had some partners here. To be a good Microsoft partner, you would have done a lot of training with all this stuff, making our deployment and migrations very seamless.

We're paying in dollars, and it's very expensive for us because of the exchange rates. We have all kinds of agreements with the partner, and we'll be paying quarterly. But it depends on how you want to pay. It depends on the option that's flexible for you.

We would recommend this solution to potential users. I would advise them to analyze the infrastructure and what they want to achieve. After that, they should be able to get across to a good partner. 

That will help them a lot because they would need a good supportive partner. Migration can be very miserable, so they should consider a good partner. They should also have their own internal strategy on what they want to achieve. This will help the partners help them. 

We wanted to do a whole lot of things that cost us even more. But because we were able to get a reliable partner, they were able to guide us very well, and we were able to get some significant cost savings.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a ten.

We have been using it to modernize customers' environments. We propose that the customers consider moving a number of things into the public cloud instead of building and maintaining everything on-premise. 

The organization can focus more on real business problems instead of IT problems. It can also reduce the time spent setting up the infrastructure. This then makes the organization more agile and, in a lot of cases, more reliable. With the public cloud, if your design is okay, the chance of running into a serious outage is, in most cases, lower than that when relying on your own on-premise IT infrastructure, particularly in the case of companies with 50 to 500 people that typically don't have very big IT budgets.

I think the most useful feature has been the remote desktop. It has been very helpful when customers have old applications that are not architected to run remotely.

In my opinion, what could be improved is making the actual costs more predictable. It is very difficult to estimate the cost or the budget you are going to need to run your environment in Azure Cloud. You have to be a specialist to understand how you will be charged, which constantly changes.

As for additional features, it would be great if the pricing could be cheaper for those trying to study and use the cloud. Having a discounted pricing scheme or even a free usage scheme, like a sandbox that is free to use on a continuous basis, for those who are studying would help them to actually generate more business later on. The more people learn to use the clouds, the more business they will actually attract.

They will start pushing solutions into the cloud, but if they have no time or opportunity to learn to use it, they will not be confident in proposing cloud solutions. So until they have been able to validate it in a test environment or a learning environment, they won't take the risk and propose a cloud solution.

I've been involved with this solution for one year.

I think Microsoft Azure is fairly stable. It also depends on how you set up your design.

As advertised, the scalability should never be an issue. The only thing that would stop you from scaling would be that your application has an architecture that is not scalable.

For public clouds, customer service/technical support is okay. In general, the documentation is very good.

For those who are familiar with Azure, the initial setup is not that complex. However, for those who are using Azure for the first time, it's probably a bit more involved because they may need to create their own virtual data centers in the cloud with the necessary security measures. I think that often this is a bit underestimated mostly because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the new customer.

Software licensing models can be expensive depending on what you need compared to open source solutions, for example. However, if you don't have the technical skills, you may be better off paying for a license and support instead of trying to use open source solutions.

I would rate Microsoft Azure at eight on a scale from one to ten. 

I would advice others to take the time to study it carefully because there's a lot to understand and a lot to know before putting a solution in the clouds. Don't underestimate the complexity.

I primarily used the solution for hypothetical cases. I used the solution to look at the 2019 active directory environment, some remote SQL storage, and storage access from on-premises to the cloud.

There's a feature for automated tasks. As an administrator, handling administrative-type tasks, it's quite useful. For example, I was spending lots of money when I would spin things up. I'd spin up a SQL server. I'd spin up different types of things. They cost a lot of money. I would get distracted, walk away, and go to bed. I'd get up in the morning, and I'd see I'd have a bill. Therefore, I spun up an automated task and wrote a PowerShell script, put it in an automated task, and it would run at seven o'clock every night, and delete all my resources. It saved me money.

You can build an environment in minutes. It's very good in terms of being an infrastructure as a service, and I found that really fascinating.

All the devices they have up there that replace existing devices in the real world like load balancers or F5 are helpful. I'm not sure how they relate or how they form compared to F5, or the firewalls compare to the ones that are in data centers, however, they looked all right to me.

The solution is mostly stable.

The product scales extremely well.

It's a bit of a mystery how the storage is going to perform. For example, when you've got a storage device like Hitachi or NetApp, you can run reports on that storage and you can do all this good stuff. I'm not sure if that's the case with Azure. A lot of the stuff is kind of proprietary, at the moment.

The cost is quite high.

You can't control the data as much as you would like to. When it's theirs, it's theirs. With Hitachi, Hitachi has its own policies. You can move data around based on how much it's used into lower-cost discs and whatnot. You might be able to do that with Azure. However, I can't verify that.

The initial setup is complex.

They need to make storage easy and offer more interconnectivity between solutions.

I've used the solution for about a year or so. Maybe a year and a half at most. It hasn't been that long.

In terms of stability, I've seen it go down twice now. They've had two problems with the active directory. That said, I would describe it as stable. They have different sites, regions, and whatnot, where you can move your data around in case you lose a data center or you lose a region. However, if you lose the active directory, that can take everything down.

It's not any more stable than an enterprise environment, to be honest. Maybe a little bit, however, if you lose a network connection to it, that's not stable.

I worked in a bank, a huge 50,000 employee enterprise. I saw their infrastructure go up and down about the same, once or twice a year. That's about the same as Azure, therefore, it's not anything different than an enterprise. You can make an enterprise resilient if you have lots of domain controllers and you do lots of redundant paths. 

The solution is very scalable. It's one of its great selling points. If a company needs to scale, it can do so with ease.

I've never been in touch with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

For a layperson or someone who is not trained, it wasn't an easy initial setup. It had some complexities.

I've personally gotten used to the process. The deployment, for example, wouldn't take that long now. While in the beginning, a deployment might take a month, now that I am more comfortable with the solution and more familiar, I can likely do it in a few days. 

That said, it depends on a company's plans and its own unique environment and complexities. It can vary. Most people seem to struggle with all of the connections they had before.

The number of people you need to deploy or maintain the solution really depends on the size of the environment. After implementation, you could probably scale back your employees from 10% to 50% with Azure.

I can handle an implementation myself. I'm getting better and faster at it.

I've found the cost to be a bit high. You also get dinged for extra things along the way.

The charges are also unpredictable. Even if you think something is a relatively static item, they'll charge you for it and it will change your expectation of the cost.

I've looked at other solutions, such as Hitachi and Netapp.

The biggest struggle a person would have these days, as an architect, is to determine what the cost-benefit of going to Azure would be rather than going to a storage device such as a Hitachi or a NetApp. Which has better value? What's going to be better in the next couple of years? You can really get screwed if you're going to be pulling data down from the cloud. If you pull a lot of data from the cloud, it's going to cost you. You don't get charged for putting it up. You get charged for pulling it down.

I basically used the solution to study.

I used a few different deployment models. I made an on-prem environment, Hyper-V environment, on my laptop and I connected it to the cloud.

I'd advise those considering the solution to not put all of their eggs in one basket. By that, I mean, it's a good idea to go hybrid and not full cloud. Going hybrid covers that network loss that you could suffer if you lose the network. If you lost a data center or a region, you could still have your on-prem server running an image of the cloud onsite.

I'd give the solution an eight out of ten. I haven't had a chance to study AWS or Google, however, I like this solution very much.

We just use it as a virtual environment.

It has been good financially because no CapEx investment is required for any of the on-prem infrastructures. It is an OPEX model, so it is easy for budgeting.

Its resiliency is most valuable. It is also a very scalable solution, so you can spend the resources on demand.

The interface for configuring the environment is not very intuitive. Certain things are at different places, and it is not easy to navigate.

They should have a more transparent licensing model. Currently, Microsoft's licensing is a bit clunky, and it keeps changing depending on the type of subscription you have. Different features are included, and sometimes, it is very hard to figure out the right licensing. So, the commercial aspect of the licensing can be improved, and they can make it easier to understand all the features that are included.

I have been using this solution for about a year and a half.

I can't complain.

It is a very scalable solution.

Thankfully, I didn't have to use support. We have a CSP, and we are dealing with our partner who deals with Microsoft on our behalf.

I am not sure, but I think this is the first cloud infrastructure that we have used.

It has a pretty straightforward deployment. There are just a couple of clicks. The deployment takes about a day.

We used the reseller.

Price-wise, it is comparable to other solutions for the features that we are using.

It is pretty straightforward. I would advise others to just make sure that you have an architecture that you want to implement. You need to understand what you want to achieve in order to build or configure the platform correctly. The infrastructure, architecture, and design are very important to fully understand what resource groups do you want to use because you're building around the resource groups. That's pretty much it. 

We are thinking of increasing the usage of the cloud, and I'm looking at alternatives. After all the research is done, we will see if it is going to be Azure or something else.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten because it is doing everything I want it to do, and I don't really have a comparison with other similar products.

We are using Active Directory in Azure, so it's for all of the Office 365 services.

This product is quite easy to use and is available on-demand.

There are so many services available that the interface is a little bit messy, and when you're looking for a specific service, you have to know exactly where to search. Having better visibility in the interface would be an improvement.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Azure is a scalable solution. We have approximately 150 users.

We have used technical support and it is very good.

As a cloud-based product, there is no installation.

This is an expensive product.

In summary, this is a good solution, and other than some improvements to the user interface, I cannot think of any features that are missing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's similar to AWS.

It's an infrastructure as a service.

It's a cloud service, so it's always up to date.

If you compare it with AWS, it is not very friendly to use. I find the UI better to work with on AWS.

They easily provide service with Windows, but not with Linux.

I am a beginner, and only been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of months.

Microsoft Azure is pretty stable.

It's a scalable product. Because it's a cloud service, there is an infinite opportunity for scaling.

We only have one or two people who are using this solution in our organization.

I reached out to support once, but they were not that quick to respond.

Technical support could be faster.

I have experience with AWS and Microsoft Azure is not that friendly. It is a bit complicated compared to AWS.

It's a cloud service. There is no installation.

It is expensive, but it is less expensive than AWS.

Even with it being cheaper than AWS, the price could be cheaper.

It is similar to AWS, where it is on-demand and is billed monthly.

We are not currently using this solution and we are not sure if we will be using it in the future.

 For those who are connected to the Windows Operating System, I would recommend this product. However, I would not recommend it for a Linux environment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use it to host virtual machines and migrate new web applications to the cloud.

With Microsoft Azure, we have a platform that lets us easily deploy applications to the cloud.

They should create integrations with more platforms.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

It enables great scalability.

We are satisfied with the support from Microsoft.

It was quite easy to setup.

The current pricing is on a pay-as-you-go subscription.

We have a private cloud, but we are interested in having a hybrid cloud that includes Microsoft Azure. This use of it as an Infrastructure as a Service will help us to expand our scale using our hardware.

Primarily, we use Azure to test services and solutions that we want to use on the public cloud. Nothing in production is being used on Azure yet because of latency.

Azure is helpful when you want to set up a server, such as a Linux test server. For example, we can transfer our code to the test server and do a comparison.

This solution is easy to use. It has quite a good interface for things like provisioning a server.

Provisioning a server is fast, taking only one or two minutes before it is ready. In our private cloud, this process still takes longer.

At this point, the latency is too high to use Azure in our production environment.

I would like to see support for data streaming in the future because I understand that currently, data streaming is not there. It would work like Kafka does, in Microsoft Azure. If they can provide the Platform as a Service and Infrastructure as a Service, it will be better.

For example, if want to use Kafka, I should be able to purchase Microsoft Azure and then use my Kafka license. This would also give me support. Right now, using it requires first getting a server through Infrastructure as a Service, then getting a Kafka license, then installing the server in the cloud.

We started using Microsoft Azure last year.

Azure is a scalable product. We are not using it extensively yet because we just started exploring it for use as a testing server. However, if we are satisfied with the security and issues with latency then we are going to set up performance tests.

We have not had any issues with support. The interface is quite user-friendly, so we have not needed to contact them. I think that they do have assistance available for onboarding, or creating a server.

We did evaluate other solutions but that is the job of another team in the company. I was only told that we also tried Google Cloud.

The initial setup is straightforward. Microsoft Azure provides an easy interface to log in and create a server.

The pricing is flexible. Our company engaged in negotiations to get a better price, which resulted in a two-year contract.

It seems that the cost of using the service in the short term is definitely good. However, in the long-term it is different. The long-term cost is higher than if you set up the servers on-premises, which is something that could be improved through more competitive pricing.

Our usage is rather limited right now but for what we use it for, the product is quite good and we are satisfied with the services. This is a product that I can recommend for anybody who does not want to invest a lot of money in their own hardware.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is basically a platform as a service for web applications, virtual machines, Azure identity, et cetera.

My day-to-day is to migrate servers using Mover or some other app to access on-premises data centers. We then use Azure Migrate to move the servers in order to take advantage of the new functionalities and things like that.

The solution offers good monitoring features that allow us to configure items better in the customer environment. The monitoring is really awesome.

Occasionally, clients have specific requirements for their applications and we can move them onto Azure services or apps. 

Overall, it offers a better way to move the applications and monitor or configure the applications with higher availability. For example, there are load balancers, different types of layers that load balancers use, traffic managers, Front Door, and things of that nature that are available to us and the client via Azure.

Overall, I like how the solution works. It offers everything I need, for the most part.

The user interface is very nice and makes everything easy to use.

The power share modules have been improved, and the AC module was introduced - which has been great. There are ten or 15 more regions on the way as well.

The tools on offer are excellent. It has some really great environment assessment tools as well.

There are preview features we are waiting on. When I contact Microsoft support, there is no timeline given or clear information about when those preview features are going to be on GA, general availability. It would be ideal if they could finally give us at least an estimation of how much longer we have to wait.

Support could be improved. If you pay for a higher plan, it's okay, however, the lower plans don't offer as good of a service experience. It also seems as though each different tier doesn't talk to the other. they should be able to communicate and share details internally with each other so that they are learning from each other instead of staying siloed.

I've been using the solution for the last few years. I would estimate it's been about five years at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely been using the solution over the last 12 months.

In terms of stability, for me, it works. However, depends on the type of project that's happening. If you're going to have just a virtual machine running there then it can fail. That said, the platform offers a lot of options to improve the capability, so it depends on how much money a client wants to invest.

The scalability works just fine. I've had some issues before with Azure App Service, with an App Service environment allocation, however, Microsoft has improved that, making a bigger rack. Since then, I haven't seen issues with scalability. That was maybe a year ago.  

We currently have three clients on Microsoft Azure.

There is room for improvement with technical support. I work with premium support and therefore don't really face issues. We have good engineers. There are some issues when you get a new support person. They have a lot of rotation in their personnel. They train people for a couple of months. They're trying to help however, it's not the same as getting a seasoned professional. It really depends on the support line you buy. If you go for a lower tier, you're likely to get less experienced assistance.  

For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. It was not overly complex. I worked with a Microsoft support engineer. I had contact with the product group and know the technical advisors and technical matters, which made it very easy for me.

For example, in comparison. I tried to use Amazon Web Services by myself, and I got confused as I didn't have that level of support. With Azure, the interface is nice, and it's pretty straightforward. Anybody with a little bit of technical knowledge about working, virtual machines, or similar items can use it with little to no problem. The implementation is pretty good.

The time it takes to deploy the solution depends on the customer environment. If they have 25 servers versus five there will be radically different deployment times.

Typically, we use Microsoft strategies as a foundation assessment. We'll look at the customer environment and be in the background for a couple of weeks to pull some data so we can have a better understanding of the customer environment. After that, we create a plan to start migrating the servers. Each client is unique.

I worked alongside a Microsoft support engineer who assisted in the process.

You do need to pay for technical support and there are different tiers of support you can get. The higher the tier, it seems, the better the service you can expect.

I haven't used AWS or Google Cloud, therefore I don't really ever compare this solution to them. I don't say "this platform has that and I like how this works". For me, Azure just works and it's fine and I don't need to go in-depth and look at other options.

The company I am working at new does use AWS and we're planning to introduce new cloud technologies as well. 

I'm not a salesperson, however, I can say that we would move the client to whichever technology made sense to them after doing an evaluation of their requirements. That, of course, is handled by a different department.

We are a reseller and a Microsoft Gold partner. We are a CSP, a Cloud Solution Provider. We offer managed services to our customers. We are moving data centers to Azure, however, we are a managed service provider. We have access to the customer's environment in order to pull analytics data to help them with consulting services, and things like that.

My basic advice to those considering the solution is that planning is essential. Microsoft does a good job of advising their customers at the outset to ensure they get what they need, however, it's helpful to go in and understand deeply what it is your company needs overall. 

That said, Azure is a strong cloud and its technology is great. Microsoft offers good implementation with service legal agreements and good practices.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

It's primarily used for access to the cloud or the virtual machines and to have a cloud-based solution that can handle tasks such as data processing, or for having data storage, and all types of other things.

The product is very flexible.

The performance overall is great.

It's a great advantage for a company to be on the cloud. It gives a company nice advantages.

The solution has proven to be quite stable so far.

The solution has been scalable.

There are no new releases per se; the solution simply adds on more services over time. 

The solution needs to offer more data analysis services. It would be extremely helpful to Azure's clients if they had more of this.

I've been using the solution for about a year or so. I believe it's been around 12 months. It hasn't been that long.

The stability of the solution has been very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

So far, we've found the scalability to be pretty good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease.

We have about five people working directly on the solution currently.

We haven't really dealt with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I've never had any direct interactions with them personally.

There isn't really an initial setup. It's on the cloud. You don't really have to deploy anything or set anything up.

Our customers don't have to pay any licensing fees in order to use Azure.

As we are on the cloud deployment model, we're always on the latest version of the solution. It is always automatically updated for us.

Overall, I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with its capabilities so far.

In general, I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Our use cases are basically cost agility and efficiency.

Microsoft Azure really enforces the automation capabilities of our workforce. It drives us towards a new operating model in terms of delivering services more quickly and more automatically.

I think Azure's level of automation to achieve efficiency or agility is valuable. I also like the change capability cadence, the showback capabilities, and understanding what our costs are. We don't have that in our on-premise environment. That whole showback capability is very interesting for us. It helps to hold the stakeholders accountable for our spending. 

Talking about improvement is like a double-edged sword. We like that they have the new capabilities, but sometimes they're deprecating capabilities faster than we can handle. If we had to improve it, we would want to stay on some of these older capabilities a bit longer. It's a brilliant platform for our staff to be more agile and more efficient but probably doesn't match with us in terms of maturity.

For example, they offer this tagging capability, but they keep introducing new platforms without it. We've become heavily reliant on tagging, but in the case of NetApp, they introduced it into the environment, and now we're not able to get the showback off of that. 

If they introduce new capabilities, they have to have all the features and functions on that new capability. They're not very good at that. If they introduce new capabilities, all the feature sets on these new capabilities should be available immediately. From my perspective, that's where they need to improve.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for about a year.

Stability is very good.

Microsoft Azure is very scalable. Our data center staff are using the solution, and then the application teams are engaging the data center staff to use that solution. We've just had a few use cases in there, and now we're just gaining experience.

Like with any new technology, we're currently re-skilling staff. It's the way we're approaching it on a six to 12-month journey before we start to get to the product and the benefits.

Technical support is average.

The initial setup isn't straightforward. You need to bring in an experienced system integrator to help you with the knowledge transfer. That's the approach we took.

We brought in an experienced system integrator that helped us build the environment and did the knowledge transfer into our workforce. I think that's a requirement. We had a very positive experience with our system integrator. The setup, we call it the Azure landing zone, and it's the data center. To set up the foundational build was a three-month engagement.

The system integrator is the intermediary between Microsoft and us. That's the value proposition of a system integrator. The system integrator helps cut through some of that. Microsoft is a big organization, and it's sometimes very hard to get to the right resources with the right knowledge. The challenge with Microsoft is that they have multiple solutions, and it's up to you to pick the right solution path. That's very hard for most organizations to do.

It's a metered environment, and it's pay-as-you-go. That's the big challenge with a metered environment. The challenge is optimizing how you use that to reduce your meter costs. It's like your children have to be good at not leaving the lights on in their bedroom to save on the power bill. That's a cultural change. 

You have to change your consumption patterns, and that's hard to do. You can get a very big bill because your consumption patterns aren't very good. We're no different than any other organization that's gone to a public cloud. You get these surprise bills, and then you've got to figure out how to manage them down appropriately.

For us, the additional cost is connectivity to the Azure data center. They said that we had to set up an Equinix data center to get from our location here in Regina, Saskatchewan, to Toronto down East. Those are some big new communication charges that we didn't have before.

That adds a significant cost to that. Private internet connectivity to a cloud is a big expense. That can be a very big cost, especially for remote businesses that are co-located to cloud data centers.

Microsoft Azure was a strategic choice. We wanted to go with a multi-cloud model, but we felt like we didn't know enough about clouds. We just kind of thought Microsoft was one of our strategic partners and decided to go with them and learn before we took the multi-cloud approach.

The advice I would give potential users would be to focus on their cost management skills and metering skills. It's all about managing your consumption. You've got to understand your consumption patterns and then learn how to manage consumption patterns going forward.

It's a really good product. In terms of leading hyperscalers, they offer very competitive features, functions, and rates compared to AWS and Google. They continue to advance their technical capabilities as rapidly or more rapidly than the other two hyperscalers. So, I would rate Microsoft Azure very high.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a nine.

We use Microsoft Azure for blob storage and for a lot of the components that they have inside the cloud.

The integration with Databricks is the most valuable aspect of the solution. It's easy to use and to put on the pipeline. Data Factory and Databricks together build a pipeline. They really integrate very well.

The stability is very good.

The solution is comparable to AWS in terms of pricing.

The design of the platform is not so easy to navigate. It's not very user-friendly.

Some services are more difficult to use in AWS and GCP. I have projects on the three clouds, and some things are easier to do on AWS. On the other hand, using Databricks on Azure is easy, as they are integrated well. However, some products are more difficult to use than other products. 

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable in terms of performance.

We have about 30 people using the solution.

I don't really deal with technical support. I'm the data scientist manager. The engineering team would be the ones that would reach out for help if they needed support.

In terms of deployment, each product requires a number of staff to deploy the model of machine learning or to build the stature to consume the data. It really depends.

I don't handle the licensing or payments aspect of the solution. I can't speak to the costs involved or what the license looks like. 

In AWS, our monthly cost was something around $10,000 or something close to that. We had to pay around $120,000 a year. It's most likely something close to that.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We deployed the solution in multiple ways. We've used the solution both on-premises and on the cloud.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a platform for our applications and security.

The application gateway is very good.

We like the WAF feature.

The product has been quite stable.

The scalability potential is very good.

Technical support is very good.

The configuration process is very minimal and happens very quickly.

The solution should emulate what MuleSoft is doing. At the moment MuleSoft has a lot of other features compared to Azure API integration. Just the coverage of the features, for example, could improve. Azure should offer more coverage of the features.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years.

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

The solution scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

We have about 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We do have plans to continue to use the solution and may even increase usage in the future.

Technical support has been good overall. They are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of service we receive.

I don't really have experience with other solutions at this time. I typically work with Azure.

There isn't much of an implementation process as the solution is in the cloud.

However, you do need to do some configurations in order to ensure it's set up as you need it to be. This part of the process takes a minimal amount of time.

We have about 60 to 70 people who can handle deployment and maintenance within our organization.

While I could handle the process myself, in our case, we had a network architect handle the configuration process.

I'm a consultant.

As we are using the cloud version of the solution, we are always using the latest version as well. It updates automatically.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are using it for disaster recovery and application hosting. We always have its latest version because it is cloud-based.

It is easy to use. It is also stable.

Its subscription price could be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is stable.

We have about 40 users of this solution.

Their technical support is fine.

We used Google Cloud. We switched because we're a Microsoft Partner.

I didn't do the installation, but its installation is easy. For its deployment and maintenance, we have two engineers.

It is affordable, but its subscription price could be cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

I installed it to perform some tests and use it on the Microsoft servers.

I used Microsoft Azure to run some tests and found it to be easy to use, particularly on the Microsoft servers. I use AWS on the Linux servers.

It is very easy to use, especially if it is on the servers. Also, I have found it to be easier to use than AWS. 

It is a stable and scalable product as well. I think it is also secure.

I think the cloud interface could be improved.

I have been using this solution for a year.

It is a very stable solution.

I think Microsoft Azure is a scalable solution.

The deployment process was easy and straightforward. It took about 10 minutes. 

I installed the solution myself because I was performing some tests.

I currently use the pay-as-you-go option.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at eight. It is a very stable and secure product.

It is also easier to use than AWS.

It is a very easy-to-use platform, and it is very powerful in terms of data backup and Blob storage. It has very good features, especially if you are using Microsoft products, such as Windows, Microsoft SQL Server.

They should optimize their pricing so that we can use more features. I would also like to see more auditing and more security for the Blob storage feature.

From a technical point, it has very good features for Microsoft products, but for non-Microsoft products, it may have some limitations. I have mostly worked with Windows-based integration, and now I am trying to use it for open-source systems. It is good but not as easy as Microsoft products.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is a stable product, but it also depends on the configuration.

It is very scalable.

It is quite straightforward.

Its price should be optimized so that we can use more features.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten because my environment is Windows-based. For a non-Microsoft environment, I would rate it a seven out of ten.

It's cloud computing. It's just an alternative to buying physical servers and storage.

Within our organization, there are roughly 2,000 employees using this solution. We definitely plan to keep using this solution in the future.

It's stable, easy to use, reliable, and cheap.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for the past few years.

This solution is very stable.

Technical support is pretty good. I think they're doing pretty well. 

We used to use Amazon AWS.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It only takes minutes because it's cloud provisioning.

I installed this solution myself along with the help of three technical team members. 

The price needs to be lower because they're competing with AWS. AWS, price-wise, is sexier. In this case, Azure needs to do better in terms of pricing.

We are on a subscription; we pay on a monthly basis. It's consumption-based, so the price varies depending on usage.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. I am satisfied with Microsoft Azure.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. 

A lot of customers are turning to Microsoft Azure. We are using the latest version and we are a Microsoft Gold partner. We use it as a backup solution. It is also used for authentication and cancellations. We are providing these types of solutions as a live requirement, and we are moving customers to their Cloud Station.

The system is more secure.

It could be more stable, but we think this is due to Microsoft making changes too often to their setup. We also think the configuration could be easier. Sometimes performance takes a hit on a slow network. Microsoft does not appear to pay enough attention to the platform or the account solution.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a few years.

Microsoft Azure is very scalable.

Microsoft does provide good support and enables our customers to obtain the results they need.

Initially, it was difficult to setup. The complexity comes in when there are more items to configure. We pay our bill in a monthly or 6 monthly billing cycle. The cost depends on how much you use during the period.

I would rate Microsoft Azure 8 out of 10. 

We're using the product as an infrastructure as a service. I'm basically using it to host services.

The product is very easy to provision. This is one of its most valuable aspects.

The solution offers pretty good integration capabilities at this time.

We've found the pricing to be pretty good so far. It's not too expensive.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The stability is quite good. It's a reliable product.

We have found the scalability to be very good.

The solution offers very good upgrades and updates regularly.

The product can be a bit confusing at times. It's not well laid out. The interface, for example, can be a bit hard to figure out and they seem to be constantly changing things on us.

It's a rather new product and therefore lacks the maturity of other options. There is much they can do to add to it and to improve it. That may likely come with more time.

Up until two or so years ago, they weren't even accepting customer feedback on the solution. They've just started to do so, and they have given users a sense that improvements will be on the way sometime in the future.

Technical support is lacking right now. It needs to be better.

We've been using the solution for more than 12 months at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance, overall, has been rather reliable for our organization.

The product has the capability to expand. If a company needs to scale it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

Technical support needs to be better. We are not quite satisfied with their level of support. They need to be more responsive to use when we have queries. 

We actually use Amazon as well. We did use it before, however, we are also still using it. We use both Azure and Amazon at this time.

We did not find the initial setup to be too complex. It's pretty straightforward. A company should be able to handle the deployment without too many issues.

The pricing is decent. We don't find that they are charging too much. It's pretty fair.

As a cloud deployment, the solution is constantly updating itself, therefore we always have access to the latest release.

We have about 300 to 400 users on it currently. It's a business unit with various users of different job descriptions.

We are planning to increase the usage in the future.

I'm not sure if the company will use this solution for the long term or if they are considering trying something new. That is yet to be determined.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're mostly quite happy with it in general.

The existing infrastructure of our customers is on-prem. We will be migrating or moving from on-prem to Microsoft Azure cloud.

We don't have to spend money to purchase the hardware, set up a data center, get people to work on it, and maintain security. We don't have to spend any money on these things. It is ready to use, and resources are available for us. We just create an account on Azure and start using the services. 

The time to market is very fast. We just supply the resources, virtual machines, and databases, and our applications are up and running. This helps our customers and us to be more future-ready and cloud-ready.

Its scalability is valuable. Depending on our requirements, we can add as many virtual machines as we want. We are able to get high availability for services. Services are always available, and they have the maximum uptime. If there is any issue with one of the services, another service is always available. 

It is pay-as-you-go. You don't have to spend any money upfront. You use the service and pay after one month or a couple of hours of use.

For deploying multiple resources in a big number, such as in hundreds, we need a streamlined process and more user-friendly scrips. The scripts have to be more user-friendly, and they should also supply some standard templates to deploy multiple resources at a time. Currently, it is very easy to deploy a couple of resources, but if you want to deploy multiple resources, it becomes complex.

The material that they provide for integration with an existing on-prem data center is complex. They have to make them user-friendly. The scripts related to resource management need to be simplified.

I have been using this solution for one year. In our company, we have been using it for four to five years.

It has a very high uptime for services. They are able to provide as per Service Level Agreement (SLA). We are not seeing any downtime for our applications. Our users have not reported any issues. 

They have their internal redundancy for hardware and software. If there is an issue with any hardware, another hardware is ready to take the load.

It is very scalable. We can add as many virtual machines as we want. We have 400 to 500 people who are using this solution.

I have not worked with support. We work in a design team where we have a dedicated Microsoft account partner to provide support. That support is fine. If there is an issue with running virtual machines or there are any infrastructure issues, another team takes care of that. I've not got any complaints from them that their support is not working.

Previously, we had the regular on-prem solution with our own data center. We had to deploy physical servers, networks, databases, and everything else. We needed flexibility and scalability for our customers and applications, and that's why we moved to the cloud.

The initial setup was easy. 

It is operational expenditure (OPEX). There is no cost upfront. When you start using it, you have to pay the charges. Initially, the cost is less, but after you start using it more and more, the cost will go higher. It is a little bit costly, but that is okay because you get better resources. You also get better support in terms of how you create the resources. Documentation is available, and the SLAs are met. 

Companies are now starting to switch over to Azure, and before doing any kind of migration, they need to plan each and everything from scratch. They should have a Microsoft consultant or somebody from Microsoft so that they can plan well before using Azure. Otherwise, they will not be aware of where they are spending and how they can reduce the spending. They would also not know whether their security compliances are being met and whether their network is being fully utilized or having some issues. Proper planning has to be done before using Azure. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution for DevOps purposes.

The installation of the product is very straightforward. It's quite easy in general.

The product is very stable. The performance has always been reliable.

We've found the solution to be extremely flexible.

I cannot recall anything really specific that needs to be addressed within the solution. There aren't any features that are missing as far as I can tell.

It would be helpful if it offered more integration with other platforms.

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

The solution is very stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It is reliable and the performance is good.

The scalability overall has been fine. We have about 500 users in the solution currently.

If a company needs to expand it, or scale it, it can do so. It shouldn't be that hard to accomplish.

We do plan to continue to use the solution into the future.

I rarely have any issues with the solution itself and therefore don't have too much experience with technical support. We don't have any complaints, to be honest.

We did not previously use a different solution before implementing Azure. This is our first tool in this area.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's very easy and very straightforward. The process shouldn't give a company any trouble.

I can't recall the exact length of time it took to deploy the product.

The pricing is likely reasonable. If you compare it to other cloud providers, there isn't too much of a difference. It likely is competitive in the market.

We are customers and end-users.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are using at this time.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. Our experience so far has been mostly positive.

Overall, I would rate the product at an eight out of ten.

One of the use cases that we have is with our installation of SAP on private. We also have some apps that we have developed that are public, and we use the security system that they provide. We also use Microsoft Sentinel, which is the SIEM that helps us to align with the alerts and the incidents. We have a combination of public and private clouds, but everything is in Azure.

Its ability to scale is most valuable. There are certain periods of the year when we are busier, and we're able to scale up and scale down with Azure depending upon our needs.

They're already doing quite a bit. I'm not unsatisfied with anything that they're doing right now. They can maybe make the transitions a little smoother and improve its pricing. The pricing for the end-user packages is a bit high.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. It is very simple to scale.

You have to go through a lot of preliminary levels before you finally get to someone, but you can get a difficult problem solved. There is a process that you have to follow.

As far as the setup goes, most of it is pretty simple. When we started working with Microsoft Intune and a little bit on the unified labeling, it became a bit more complicated, but we're getting through it.

Shared active directory and multifactor authentication (MFA) are a little bit difficult to introduce because once you put something on it, it affects all of their Office products and anything that deals with Microsoft, whether it is SharePoint, OneDrive, or something else. Often, we want to activate it for an app and not so much for everything else, but that's our peculiar quirk. I don't think there is anything that Microsoft needs to change necessarily.

The pricing for the end-user packages is a bit high. It is full of very interesting services, but I would still like it to be less expensive.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to host applications for our customers. We're implementers, we support our clients.

We have 32 customers using this solution. We have a technical team that handles all maintenance-related issues. We have multiple teams in place for each and everything. For each platform, we have an integrated team in place. 

Microsoft Azure is flexible and the performance is great.

From a security perspective, it could be improved. A little bit of automation would also be nice.

I have been using this solution for four years.

Microsoft Azure is both stable and scalable.

The technical support could be faster.

Overall, the initial setup is quite straightforward. Installation takes roughly four to five days.

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

We sell Microsoft products, and licensing that is involved in an Open License.

We sell a variety of solutions to our customers.

Microsoft Azure is a very good solution for many customers. We prefer to offer hybrid solutions to our smaller-sized customers.

The online will be through Azure or 365 and the databases we prefer locally.

It is used with Exchange, all of the mail, team, and the share products such as SharePoint.

Also for security with AI, which we are still testing.

Microsoft Azure has a large scope, it can do many things.

Everything is very easy to work with.

I believe that some of the services need to be available on the on-premises version and not only based on the cloud.

There are some security issues in the cloud that cannot be solved. Some countries will not allow you to store certain types of data on the cloud.

We started using Microsoft 365 in 2009.

The stability needs improvement. At times when there is a problem in one area, everything gets stopped, which is not good.

If the problem is the bandwidth and you have a number of redundancies or lines that link to Azure, you will have few options in Azure.

it is a scalable solution.

We haven't had a lot of issues. In our company, we prefer to learn about each product, and by doing this, we have fewer issues.

The installation is very easy.

Most areas of the application can be installed in a few minutes, but the configuration is a different story.

The configuration is dependent on the demands or the environment.

it can take hours or it can take days.

Most of the pricing from Microsoft is reasonable.

The prices are very good for the services.

If Microsoft Azure meets the demands of the company, we would recommend it.

Other companies, may require products like Amazon, or they use their own data center. It depends on the company.

I would rate most of the areas in Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

Within my company, there are roughly 150 employees using this solution. We need about 30-35 people for maintenance.

It's been pretty useful in terms of migration and disaster recovery strategy.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for roughly four years.

This solution is quite stable. We haven't had any issues stability-wise.

Scalability is good. I would rate it high, scalability-wise.

Microsoft's technical support could be improved.

There are certain areas on the Level 1 to Level 2 support-side that are not exactly great. We have issues with our Linux operating system. I don't think we've had delays as such but I would say that's one area there might be some scope for improvement.

I personally used to work with AWS, but that was at another company.

The initial setup was fairly easy. Pretty much all the services are easy to deploy — not very complicated as such. 

The cost could definitely be lower.

You have to look out for the external storage costs — it can be a bit of a surprise. You have to do your budgeting. We didn't really anticipate that the storage expenses would be so much higher than anything else. That's something people have to budget and account for before they migrate to the cloud.

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

Within our organization, there are roughly 15 people using this solution.

It's a great solution. It's so customizable. Every user can create dashboards to suit their needs. We can create and share them with our teammates easily, too.

Microsoft Azure is also very user-friendly.

I honestly can't think of anything that needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for five years.

Microsoft Azure is both scalable and stable.

The technical support is very responsive.

I evaluated Amazon and Google Cloud.

The initial setup was quite straightforward. Deployment depends on your requirements. Typically, I can deploy it within a weeks time.

There are monthly and yearly payment plans. We save more in the long run with the yearly option.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to other users.

Microsoft Azure has all of the latest cloud services with all high availability and scalability. It's also very secure. The cost is more or less the same across all cloud service providers, too. 

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

Due to the pandemic, I haven't been able to utilize their full resources.This has made it complicated to scale up. I hope this will be resolved after the pandemic.

The primary use case of this solution is generally for infrastructure service, and also for VC-migrations and district modernization using the platform service. We're a consulting firm so we use this solution and also deploy it for our customers. I'm an architect/project manager and we are partners of Microsoft.

The main beneficial features the product provides are security, scalability, and elasticity.

The technical support could be improved. When we leave tickets, it can take some days before the issue is dealt with. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

We haven't had any issues with stability in the last 12 months, prior to that there were some small problems. 

The scalability is good, most of our clients are enterprise size organizations. 

The initial setup is straightforward, the environment is mature with a lot of documentation. 

The price of the solution is okay although it depends on the region of the deployment.

A company should look at the suitability for their use case before choosing a solution. 

I rate this solution 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.

In our company, this solution is mainly used for configuring devices and enabling them to be used by multiple users. I'm a developer. 

The product is valuable if you don't want to spend a lot of money configuring your own devices on different machines. I like that if I only want to use limited features, I don't have to pay for it. 

The solution is not particularly user friendly so that could be improved. With Microsoft Azure it's quite difficult to do anything freely or try my hand at something new. I think the solution is also lacking in security. I'd like to see the option of a free account for carrying out a POC and the ability to play around with the solution without any restrictions. 

We've been using this solution for a year. 

This is a stable solution.

We have the server on cloud so it's scalable according to demand. All of our staff use it, and we have 15,000 users.

I previously used AWS. In comparison, Azure is a little restricted because of the security features and, as a developer, I'm not comfortable with that. AWS is more user friendly and in general, people find it easier to use. AWS is easier to install and to experiment and play around with to get a feel for the product.

There is no setup as such, it's on a server and it's a matter of configuring on the cloud. If you need, you can spawn 3,000 machines with a single execution and 10,000 or so test scripts within minutes.

I would definitely recommend this solution. 

I rate it an eight out of 10. 

We use this solution for IaaS, SaaS, PaaS security, identity, and Kubernetes.

I like everything, overall.

It's a cloud platform so it's alive.

There are many different components such as SaaS, PaaS, and API, so every month they are releasing a few hundred new features.

It is constantly updating. There are weekly releases, sometimes daily releases, and there should be fewer that are consolidated into one.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for six years.

We are using the latest version.

The stability is very good.

It's a very scalable solution. It is not really the number of users we have, but rather, it is more a case of service PCs. We have 70,000 or more.

My experience with technical support has been good. They are very supportive.

It's as complex as it wants to be. There's nothing initial about it.

It's an OPEX model, you pay as you go, or you can reserve funds.

Pricing can always be better.

It's a good product and I recommend it to others.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Within our company, there are around 150 employees using this solution. We have a technical team of about five or six people. 

I like that it's cloud-based and it's 24/7, theoretically. I am also happy with the licensing fees. It's quite competitive in the market. They sell Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and level 5 licenses, and one of them is compatible with PowerPoint. The licensing fee is quite cheap for what they're offering.

A few different vendors from Fortinet, from Barracuda, from Forcepoint, all use infrastructure from Azure from time to time. A problem with Azure is that the architecture that they have is not really compliant — not really connecting with the endpoint Cloud. It's a different type of architecture, so that's a mistake from Microsoft. Hopefully, they will fix it soon.

It could be more secure actually. Microsoft Defender is not very secure. The platform is also a bit slow, to be honest. It takes a few seconds to load. Although, it does update quickly now. It's one-click — Microsoft takes four seconds and Google takes two and a half. It's minimal.

Better integration with other vendors and third-party systems would be a nice change.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for roughly five or six years.

Microsoft Azure is stable.

Microsoft Azure is cloud-based, so it's definitely scalable. 

We didn't have any problems setting it up.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a rating of eight. It's a good product. It does have a few flaws but it's solid. 

We are using the solution for applications.

There are several products within Azure.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable in my experience.

The solution is scalable.

The service is good.

The cost structure is like most cloud-based services. The solution could be cheaper, it is always better to be cheaper.

I recommend this solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten.

It is so huge and so powerful. The best thing is the possibilities of things that you can actually do with it. If you do it right, you can work or host your stuff a lot cheaper than traditionally. 

Its security is good, and it also reduces the strain on internal IT.

I would like to see improved migration tools. It is improving week by week. They just need to make sure that they keep up with the new functionality provided in other clouds. 

I have been using this solution for nine years.

I have not been overly impressed with stability in the last years.

By definition, it is scalable. Indirectly, one of our customers probably has more than 100,000 users.

If you take the normal technical support, then it is okay. If you pay for premium technical support, then it is really good.

Its initial setup is straightforward. You don't have to do anything. It is all done for you.

I am a Microsoft partner, so I would, of course, recommend it. I would recommend Azure, then AWS, and then Google.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We use it to create virtual machines for the key vaults and our processes. 

It is easy to use and flexible.

It is pretty secure, but it can always be more secure.

I have been using this solution for one year.

It is stable.

I don't know much about it, but I think it is scalable. We have 300 to 400 users of this solution. 

I do not have any experience with their technical support.

I am not aware of any other solution.

I would recommend this solution. We plan to keep using it. 

I would rate Microsoft Azure a seven out of ten.

We use Azure for storage, virtual machines, virtual networking, and our VPN.

We have the Microsoft Firewall set up, and we use Blob Storage.

There are many different features we use, based on different requirements.

The feature that we like best is integration with Active Directory.

Azure is easy to use.

It would be advantageous if the dashboard had more clarity, in terms of the visibility that it provides. The challenge that we are facing has to do with resources and the grouping of them. We have different services that we use and we cannot see all of them until we filter the resource group.

Having inbuilt security would be an improvement. As it is now, Microsoft has a sentinel as a security tool, where you need to integrate it.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for more than three years.

This is a scalable product. We have between 50 and 100 people who are using it, and most of them are software developers.

The support is very good, and they respond within an hour.

We use AWS as well as Azure.

Normally, we log in and then we roll out the services for instances that we want, based on the requirements. It only takes a couple of minutes to deploy.

We deploy this product ourselves and we have a DevOps engineer who takes care of the maintenance.

Overall, this is a good product. We definitely plan to continue using it in the future and I recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are vendors. We are neutral from the technologies. We provide solutions to our clients as well as implement the customer needs with the different technologies.

We have a multi-channel mobile app solution that we implement, and we have an API deployed on Azure cloud. We use API management in the Azure cloud.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of use.

The Azure APIs is monetization. Its support, monetization for prepaid and postpaid are good features that we look for.

I would like to see this solution support integration.

We have been selling Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

We are implementing the latest version.

Microsoft Azure is stable.

It's a scalable solution. We have approximately 1,000 users who are using this solution.

Technical support is awesome! It's very good.

We have installed many competitive products, such as Appigee and IBM, but Microsoft Azure is the easiest one to install.

While I was not a part of the deployment, I know it took them less than a week.

We have a team of 10 to 15 for the deployment, customization, and implementation of this solution.

For anyone who is interested in using this solution, I would recommend it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We are customers of Microsoft and I'm an IT architect.

The solution reduces work for our IT teams. They don't have to keep things up to date, and we can concentrate on our mission. The best feature for us is the help we get from Microsoft to migrate applications to the latest release and support efforts. It saves us a lot of time. 

The cost is a big issue, it can quickly go up if you don't control things. We've set up a system that shuts down machines regularly so we don't run up costs. Sometimes our development teams start up machines and forget to shut them down, and we see our costs go up quite rapidly with monthly surcharges. It would be helpful if Microsoft didn't change the control panels quite so often. It means we need to retrain personnel whenever things change and that seems to have an impact on our IT teams.

We've been using this solution for nearly four years. 

Stability is good and the solution is easy to maintain. 

Scalability is really awesome. We don't have to worry about it at all, we're really impressed. Everyone in the company uses Azure. 

Tech support is great. I find that we get answers quickly. It's just the first line of support that I criticize sometimes because it seems that whenever we open a ticket, they give us a run around with certain questions that basically we've answered. But as soon as we get into the next level of support, it's more advanced and questions are answered quite rapidly. Our tech guys know how to open a ticket and basically provide all the available information that they need. We sometimes have to get through that initial loop, and answer the same questions again and again, until they push us to another level of support.

Four years ago the initial setup was quite complex but lately I find it's becoming increasingly easier, and the set up rules for securities are a lot simpler. These are things that are improving all the time. 

Licensing is on an annual basis. 

If a company wants to concentrate more on their mission and less on supporting infrastructure, they should give Azure a go. I find that it saves us a lot of time.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are a Microsoft Partner for Central America. The solution is in our portfolio, we provide managed services on Azure for our customers and we use it for our services infrastructure.

The most valuable aspect of Azure is the flexibility you have for all the services and solutions it offers, even if you use IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS, you have the option to only pay for the services you use – “pay as you go”, in a Cloud that is compliant with most regulations, using this advantage you have a lot of options and technologies you can adopt, and easily integrate into your infrastructure, to accelerate your Digital Transformation journey.

We integrating Azure to build solutions that we offer to our customers.

Integrate as a service. A lot of Microsoft software licensing options aren’t yet in Azure. Also, the ability to integrate with other technologies, such as other options on the market based on RISC Technologies.

I have been using the solution for 10 years.

I rate Microsoft Azure an nine out of ten.

Our production system is on Microsoft Azure. We are using the latest version of this solution.

We have services for the data in the SQL Server database. We also have servers for our web-based applications. All transactions occur in this environment. We also have a mirror environment in Azure, which is a different cloud geographically. 

There are many useful features. We use web apps, so instead of starting a web server, we just have machines running some web services. This was helpful for us in terms of the scalability of the application. We also use Active Directory for authentication and some services for the data backup.

It is a very good and reliable solution. It was easy to implement this solution. It fits very well into our plans and covers our needs to provide infrastructure in the cloud. The portal to configure new resources is very easy, and it is very easy to allocate new resources.

We would like it to be cheaper. As a customer, we always want to pay less.

I have been using this solution since 2013.

In the past, they had some major outages, but it is a pretty stable platform.

It is very scalable. It is as easy as assigning more resources, but it also depends on the architecture. If you have web apps or microservices, it is easy to implement a kind of dynamic or elastic growth. When you have a lot of activities, Azure will automatically assign more resources, which is pretty convenient.

We have around 200 users in our company, but we also have a merchant network that uses our system. This network has about 1,000 users.

We had to escalate one case with the Microsoft team because we lost the connection with a data store. We got a response back within an hour of the event, and it was normal. Their service is fine in this regard. You can also have a better support contract, but what we have is enough for our purposes and needs.

It is pretty easy. You just have to follow the step-by-step guidelines. The deployment happens almost immediately. If you need to increase or upgrade a server or have a new server, you just go to the portal and create a new resource, such as a server or a disk. It is very fast. There is no waiting time at all.

Its price can be cheaper. Price is always an issue. We pay around $10,000 per month for all resources.

We are launching a new platform for software as a service. We create our software, and for a new concept and architecture, we are comparing AWS with Azure. We are exploring AWS. It is a different stack, and we don't have much experience with it. So far, we don't have a lot of information about production on AWS because the product is not live yet. It will take a couple of months to be finished.

It is a good solution. If you have any on-premise applications, you have to be very careful about the architecture. What you don't want to do is copy what you have in your data center and put it on the cloud because there are various alternatives once you are in the cloud. Therefore, I would recommend others to review the architecture and take advantage of the features that it provides.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten. We are happy with Microsoft and this solution.

We primarily use the solution to host the web server.

The product is very convenient for us. It ensures the website is set up right.

The solution can scale if you need it to. Expanding it is easy.

The product is rather stable. We haven't had any issues with it in that sense.

The solution is very easy to use.

I can't say that we have any complaints in terms of features or lack of capabilities within the product. Over the last two years, I'd say it's been so far so good.

It would be ideal if they could reduce costs a bit. Right now, we find the product to be expensive.

I've been using the solution for around two years at this point. It hasn't been too long.

The solution so far has been reliable. We haven't had problems with stability over the last two years of use. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good.

The scalability of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so rather easily. It shouldn't give them any trouble.

We don't currently have plans to increase the usage ourselves at this point. There's no scaling that will be done in the near future on our end.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past. We had a question we needed them to answer and they were able to help us. I'd say they were knowledgeable and responsive and that we've been happy with the level of service so far.

The licensing is based on usage. I'm not sure of the exact costs involved as it's not an aspect of the solution that is my responsibility.

That said, it is my understanding that it is a bit expensive.

We're just a customer. We aren't a reseller or consultant and we don't have a professional business relationship with Microsoft.

We only really use the solution to host a website, and therefore we don't really use the full scope of features right now.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations as it is rather easy to use.

Overall, we've been quite happy with the product. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We use it for various services and business applications. 

It is stable and scalable. It is useful for many applications and services, such as SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, and OneDrive.

They can add more documentation about the solution.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 100 people in the organization.

Their technical support is good. There are no problems.

It is easy to set up.

I would recommend this solution. It is a good solution.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

We are using Microsoft Azure to access the Azure cloud database.

It's a flexible solution.

We need more customization and support for doing so.

I would like to see more customization on the DevOps side.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately two years. The organization has been it for more than five years.

We are working with the current version.

It's a stable solution.

We plan to continue using it in the future.

Technical support is very good.

The installation is straightforward.

If you want to install it, it would have to be on a VMware virtual machine.

If you have some experience, it doesn't take much more than thirty minutes to an hour to complete the installation.

I completed the installation myself.

This is a good product and I recommend it to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

This year, we built our own data center, and we use this solution to extend it into the cloud.

We have implemented the ExpressRoute connection, which is an established circuit between the local provider and the Microsoft network edge. This leads you directly to the Microsoft data center.

The digital workload transfers from on-premises here to the Azure cloud, which is a hybrid model. We have two different zones in Azure. One is for the intranet, and the other is for the internet.

The most valuable feature is the performance for our digital workloads.

At times, the support is terrible. It is not bad all of the time, but many times when we have contacted them, there are juniors without refined knowledge. We have had instances where it takes a long time to solve just a single problem.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for the past two years.

The stability depends on the customer. They decide the compute and other things, such as the level of support. If they take premium support then the SLA given by Microsoft is higher than when you choose a virtual machine without premium.

At the moment, we are reviewing and studying how to migrate our full workload to the cloud. We have one datacenter with more than 120 virtual machines and we are learning how to do the migration. Once it is achieved, the hybrid model we have can become a public model.

Our design was complex because we wanted it done in a certain way. There were lots of things to be done. We just experienced problems in the firewall's compatibility with Azure because when you implement a firewall, it's not as straightforward as in the case when you implement it on-premises. This led to some challenges and we had to troubleshoot the deployment of one firewall for a full month.

Even the local providers did not have experience with how to deploy that one firewall, which is why we spent so much time troubleshooting. It turns out that when you deploy a firewall on-premises and you want to migrate to the cloud, there are certain considerations that you have to keep in mind, which makes it more complex.

For our second firewall implementation, it was faster and better.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

This is definitely a product that I recommend, but it has to be done smartly. Not everything can be migrated and you shouldn't try to migrate everything as-is. It has to be done properly and people have to understand how services that are to be migrated need to be done. Also, there are some services that should not be migrated because it is better to keep them on your own cloud. This should all be studied in advance.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are a consultancy company. We provide technology solutions for our clients. We use Microsoft Azure to provide infrastructure for our clients. 

Active Directory is a good feature. The infrastructure features that Azure provides are also good.

There should be more language options for the Azure Functions apps. It supports programming languages, but there are only a few options. It could have more programming languages. 

I have been using this solution for one year.

It has good stability. It has an availability of 99,9%.

It has good scalability. It is an automatic process. 

It is a retail solution. Therefore, we have a lot of users. We probably have direct and indirect users in thousands.

I don't like their support so much. The support of Microsoft is not fast enough and should be faster. They have a lot of layers or levels. I used to get in touch with them through the Azure Portal.

The initial setup is easy. We have developed a DevOps automatic process, which makes it very fast to deploy. It takes just a few minutes.

I would advise taking care of the intermediate layers between your business and Microsoft. They aren't good.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten. This rating is based on the general features. If they put more programming languages, I would rate it a ten. It is a good product.

We are an SD-WAN vendor and we deal with a lot of networks. Microsoft Azure is one that I use regularly.

It's application migration. We run a network as a service from Azure. People are migrating to Azure, either it's MS SQL, SAP on Azure deployments or just running on Azure that we connect. 

The primary use case is to provide the SD-WAN to connect their remote offices and users to Azure and the data center.

Azure is pretty good and in fact, we have about 100 customers who are using Azure on our technology. These are some of the largest manufacturing companies in this region.

Azure is a good networking solution from a WAN perspective.

Features and functionality from a scale perspective, at least in the top three, are very compatible. These are AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

I would like to see all of the cloud providers be more compatible with each other. All of the big organizations, such as large manufacturing and banking and financials, use Azure, while other places will use Google Cloud to AWS. Compatability between these is important.

I have been associated with Microsoft Azure for the last three and a half years.

Azure scales like any other cloud.

As a partner, the technical support is pretty responsive.

We also use Digital Ocean, Google Cloud, AWS, and we are set up with multi-cloud.

I think Azure and AWS are similar in terms of pricing. Google Cloud is cheaper compared to either of these two. Google Cloud on the same sales chart. It is 30% to 40% cheaper than AWS or Azure. The Azure additional option is even cheaper than Google Cloud.

The initial setup was easy.

Pricing is comparable but from a cost perspective, this solution is the cheapest.

We use both Private Cloud and Public Cloud. For Banks it's generally through Private Cloud, otherwise, it's on a Public Cloud, as we deliver services as well on Azure.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We work with a lot of cloud-related products, including Azure.

The most valuable feature is cloud-based storage.

All of the cloud-based features are helpful.

I would like to see better integration with other products.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a few years.