SQL Azure Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

It is stable.

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

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

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

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

We are in infrastructure development. We are using this solution with Power BI to consume the data.

We are creating on top of this SQL server. It will be consumed by Power BI for the customers, where they can customize their reports. 

I am delighted to use this solution.

The most valuable feature is the moment of data. It's infused data where we can pull the data and post it immediately.

Also, it can connect to different sources. It's a storage mechanism where you can consume the data and post it into the target systems.

The interface is awesome. It's ready and easy to use.

It is difficult to find any disadvantages when I can only see advantages in using SQL Azure.

When you have a subscription, the subscription itself is not secure. You have to add the user into the directory and you will be able to use it. 

I would like to see integration with Snowflake.

I have been using SQL Azure for a couple of months.

We are using the 2017 version.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have eight members in our organization who are using this solution.

We have plans to continue using this solution.

Technical support is good and always available.

Previously, we did not use another product.

The initial setup is straightforward and the installation is simple.

It only requires you to get a subscription. Once you have downloaded it, you can create it as a resource and you can already use it.

The number of members required to maintain this solution is dependant on the server.

They have standard subscriptions that are not the entire version. If you have a full version of your subscription then you have the entire version that you can download.

When you no longer need it, you can just stop the services. You can reduce the amount you pay, which is an advantage. Essentially, it's a pay and use mechanism.

It's reasonably priced and when you compare it with other products in the cloud environment, it's cheaper.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

I use the solution for database maintenance. 

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

The solution effectively handles storing and maintaining information in databases. 

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

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

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

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. 

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

I have not needed technical support. 

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

A colleague assisted me with implementation. 

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

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

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

Azure Portal is most valuable.

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

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

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

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

We used PostgreSQL, which was on-premises.

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

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

I primarily use it for accounting and ERP solutions.

I have an old SQL server, and it's not stable. I have two choices, to renew the server or move the data to Azure. So I decided to move everything to the cloud. The database has since become more stable, and I have less troubleshooting, which saves time and money.

The solution could be less expensive. They need to work on their pricing model.

The solution is very stable. I haven't faced any issues up to this point.

It's scalable. I worked sales and marketing for Microsoft and I know it's scalable. You can increase and decrease the specs for the server on demand. When it comes to physical hardware, you can increase the specs if you get the wrong machine. With software, you have to pay more money. You can also easily scale down and decrease the specs and save some money if you like.

I've used technical support for other Microsoft solutions, and I've found them to be very fast in their response time. They'll call you and help you fix the problem.

I've never worked with another cloud solution. This is my first.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took less than one day for deployment. I have a lot of experience, so it might take others three or four days to complete a setup. You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

I did the implementation myself.

We pay less than $1000 monthly in licensing fees. There are no additional costs. When you start to use the cloud, you can move other services to the cloud as well. So I think we will pay more in the future when we move other services over. But right now we only use the ERP system with SQL Cloud. 

I didn't really evaluate Amazon or Google. I just read up on them as Microsoft competitors. 

I'm currently moving my system onto the cloud. I'm using a hybrid version of the solution.

My advice to anyone looking to switch to the cloud is to stabilize the technology and to consider Amazon, Azure, and Google. If you don't have experience in the cloud, you have to consider all solutions and pick the best one for your company. I decided to go with Microsoft Azure because of my past experience. So if you don't have the experience to fall back on, consider all technologies as well as their cost, money, and features.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten because of the cost. I'd like it to be cheaper so we can afford to move more of our services to the cloud.

The solution is primarily used as a database.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We like the ease of integrating it with our on-premises environment. We use a hybrid model. We have a SQL Server on-premises, and we have an integration with the cloud version. We do CPU or disk intensive processes on-premises. For accessibility, we offload onto the cloud. When you do a lot of IO and things like that in the cloud, Microsoft charges for the CPU activity.

Price definitely may be a negative point. As for most of cloud based solution, certain cost components as CPU and IO usage may cause extremely hi costs.

It has been a bit over a year.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In fact, it is too easy to scale. It just scales and sends you the invoice. You have to tune it to lock it down, and then it doesn't go too far. These are the kind of things you have to take care of to avoid having bad surprises at the end of the month when they send you the resource usage invoice.

I didn't contact them regarding SQL Server, but I have contacted them for Azure and Office 365 support. They are usually quite good.

It is too easy. Initially, the database engine itself takes an hour, and that's it. Tuning it is another matter, but tuning is anyways a difficult task in itself.

It is quite expensive. I would definitely recommend not using the pay-as-you-go model because this will just mean all your money will go to Microsoft. So, really make sure to control resource usage as much as possible.

I would definitely recommend this solution. It is a very good product, and it is difficult to beat. I haven't got anything that I saw missing in it in terms of features. It is always integrated within Azure and Microsoft Office 365 ecosystems. If there is something that the database can't do, it is quite easy to have another path of the offering to take over. They are almost like AWS. They have so many services that it is really difficult not to be able to achieve things. There is always something or someone. It is just a matter of price. You also have access to the service, documentation, and even the user community.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

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

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

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

I started working with SQL Azure about six months ago.

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

SQL Azure is perfectly scalable. 

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

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

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