Azure Stack Reviews

We have a product that helps with billing on Azure Stack. Our solution makes it easier for users to manage internal chargebacks or for resellers to provide a billing system for Azure Stack.

We have our own tool that supports Azure Stack as a platform. We've been supporting it for almost four years now. We are an ISP partner for Microsoft.

Our solution is industry-agnostic, as Azure Stack itself has broad applicability.

Our billing support is helping a lot of customers. We've been able to consolidate billing onto a single platform, our Cloud platform. This is supporting many clients, as Azure doesn't have a native billing component. We provide that, and we can handle billing for both Azure Stack and Azure within a single platform. That's our product.

For example, if a reseller has deployed Azure Stack for a customer, we provide the billing functionality. Our tool can manage billing for both Azure Stack and Azure through a single platform. We're actually multi-cloud; our consolidated platform supports AWS, Azure, Azure Stack, GCP, OCI, and more – all the billing can be done through one interface.

We're quite unique. We haven't seen any competitors offering what we do right now – multi-cloud billing with extensive on-premises support. We're in the process of adding VMware as well. With this, we become a truly complete billing platform, also offering optimizations and other features both on-premises and in the cloud. That's what we do, and why we work with multiple clouds.

For hybrid cloud operations, the seamless transition it enables is key. Most enterprises have a lot of workloads on-premises, and they want a smooth way to move into the cloud. 

Some things are on-prem, and some things are on the cloud.  Azure Stack bridges that gap with solutions that work well for their existing on-premises infrastructure.

I like that it's hyper-converged, so you can have everything in one compact solution. That's the major advantage.

The integration capabilities of Azure Stack works well. In our experience, integrations are easy and function reliably.

It is not easy to set up. Technical expertise is required.

We have been using it for four years. 

Our experience has been positive. So, it offers good stability. 

It is a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

We have mostly enterprise businesses as our clients. 

The quality of support depends on the level you're paying for. For enterprise customers with high support tiers, it's usually not a problem.

Positive

It's not the easiest to set up, but with technical expertise, it's possible. The deployment take several days. 

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a seven out of ten, with ten being easy.

Technical expertise is required. It's a complete solution, so you need a dedicated hardware stack. It's not a simple task, but once it's done, the ongoing costs are generally lower than a purely cloud-based solution.

It's very cost-effective because other clouds are often more expensive. If you can use a consolidated solution including Azure Stack, it becomes both cost-effective and user-friendly.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being expensive. It's one of the more affordable solutions on the market, but Azure pricing has a lot of factors.

Azure Stack isn't a single product. The cost depends on the specific solution you build. So, it has been cost-effective for us. 

Plan carefully. It's best for scenarios where you need to keep data on-premises or have an easy path to the cloud. You need to do thorough planning initially to create the right solution and architecture. My recommendation is to have a good architect design the solution before you purchase to avoid issues.

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

We have used the solution for IPS, IDS, and security incident response. We have used Defender as an antivirus, anti-malware, and intrusion detection. We used Intune for endpoint management and endpoint detection response. We use Purview for insider threats, data leakage detection and response, and data classification.

You can use the Azure security policies to enforce your compliance objectives. We also used web firewalls and identity governance, which is a security feature or can be used as such.

The solution's front door and web application firewalls have proven most beneficial for our edge computing needs. The solution provides end-to-end comprehensive protection across the services.

You have vulnerability management tools as well. The way this solution gives you steps to follow to remediate vulnerability is not very well done. It can't be an idealized process. It needs to deal with what really exists and provide more support to people who are remediating.

The main challenge with the tool for a security person is protecting the data in transit between the on-premises or hybrid application and the public cloud. Knowing how to move the data securely at a reasonable cost was difficult.

I have been using Azure Stack for eight years.

Sometimes, Microsoft services fail without warning. The solution sends you a warning, but it's not enough of a warning in advance, which they could improve. Sometimes, we would think our application failed, but it would actually be the underlying Microsoft services that failed.

Azure Stack is a highly scalable solution. Our organization had around 500 users using the solution. We had plans to increase its usage to minimize the use of third-party tools because of cost considerations.

Sometimes, the technical support was excellent, and sometimes, they knew nothing. It's not that the people on the support team were not good, but they were not necessarily well-informed about new services.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup is usually straightforward. However, it's not simple unless you have experience in that field. The only complexity I encountered was integrating it with Business Intelligence (BI). However, that could have been my own ignorance about BI rather than Microsoft.

When I tried to scrape data out of the rest of the services and dump it into BI to analyze it, I didn't find it very helpful. I also didn't find the documentation helpful, but that's probably my ignorance. If I had known more about data analysis, I would probably have had an easier time.

The solution's deployment time took about nine months, but there were many significant enterprise-level applications to migrate. The holdup was more about the application team ensuring they could meet the business's needs before migrating.

To deploy the solution, you follow a typical business analysis process, where you gather requirements from the business, the cybersecurity team, or stakeholders. Then, you work in the cloud to find out how to meet those requirements using that solution. Earlier, you had to have a third-party VPN, but now they have their own VPN. The cloud was not quite mature until the last few years.

I find Azure Stack to be very costly. The people who manage the budgets are satisfied with the solution’s medium pricing, which is neither very expensive nor very cheap. I think the solution has a reasonably good value for what it provides.

The solution's integration with other Azure Services is extremely valuable. Since everything is designed to fit together, you don't have to do a lot of work to integrate the services with the security protections or vice versa.

The way the solution handles data sovereignty could use some work. You still need to do a lot of work to determine where the processing occurs. Suppose you have a Canadian residency requirement. Many services still have processing in the United States or Asia, where sensitive data can be an issue. It would be better if the tool were more forthright about where processing occurs or could actually move processing into the countries where sovereignty is required.

Some third-party tools were well-adapted for integration with the solution. However, this was the result of the third parties' work, not of Microsoft's. The third parties ensured that all the work was done to integrate them with Azure Stack.

The solution consistently provides support and integration. Azure Stack tries to consider and meet the needs of cybersecurity professionals as best it can. Also, I like how the tool adapted to shift left, where security became the responsibility of the whole IT team, and they met that need very well.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Azure Stack for everything, and it drives our entire business.

The solution's most valuable features are security, configurability, and recoverability.

The solution's transparency over cost management could be much easier because it's very difficult to manage costs.

I have been using Azure Stack for five years.

Microsoft has outages from time to time that affect everybody, and it takes the whole system down.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Around 200 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability ten out of ten.

It's very difficult to get our issues dealt with quickly because we're a small company.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup is not complex, but it requires a lot of training. The solution's deployment took a few weeks because we built the entire company on the cloud.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a six out of ten.

Azure Stack is a very expensive solution. The costs are very opaque and coming out of control quite quickly.

Azure Stack is deployed on the cloud in our organization. Azure Stack is a very fast and flexible product. I would recommend the solution to other users because it is a safe and standard system.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company uses Azure Stack to host the records management software.

The most valuable features of the solution are scalability, ease of use, and its ongoing maintenance process that takes away a lot of trouble when one has to do an on-premises installation.

I feel that Azure Stack has so many different variables which are not very clear. Unless you have a great deal of knowledge or a really good integrator, you may encounter a few surprises when you begin with the implementation phase of Azure Stack. In general, the initial setup phase of Azure Stack is an area with concern that needs improvement. The initial setup affected me the most from the point of view of the cost structures related to Azure Stack.

I can't comment if I would like to see any additional functionalities added to the solution since I currently don't use even 10 percent of its capabilities.

I have been using Azure Stack for six months. My company just uses the product internally.

The product has remained stable so far in our company.

It is a scalable solution.

There are around 30 users of the product in our company, and I get it to the needs of approximately 250 clients of our company who use the solution.

My company does not necessarily plan to increase the use of the solution in the near future. The usage of the solution will organically grow if required.

I have faced no issues with the technical support provided by Microsoft. I haven't had direct contact with Microsoft since it is the vendor from Microsoft that provides me with good technical support. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I currently use Fortinet FortiGate.

I haven't previously worked with products similar to Azure Stack since every product in our company was deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution was initially deployed on an on-premises model, and currently, my company is shifting the product to the cloud.

The solution's implementation phase took place over a span of approximately two and a half months.

People from Azure managed the deployment of the solution in our company from their end, so I don't know the efforts people put in to deploy the solution.

I have a consultant who takes care of the deployment, configuration, and migration part of the solution. I haven't faced any issues with the solution's deployment, configuration, and migration phases since I got help from a third-party integrator, who was very helpful.

I have not seen any return on investment from the use of the solution in my company.

Azure Stack's price falls on the higher side of the spectrum. The licensing costs for Azure Stack in our region range somewhere between 40,000 to 50,000 USD. Though my company makes monthly payments towards the licensing costs of Azure Stack, I have plans to purchase a three-year plan in the future. The licensing costs for Azure Stack include the cost of the additional facilities it provides, like maintenance and support.

I am satisfied with the overall product.

I recommend those who plan to use the product in the future to do their homework and learn everything about it before purchasing it.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten.

We primarily utilize Azure Stack for hybrid cloud deployments, mainly for scaling up compute resources quickly when needed. This involves spinning up instances on the public cloud, specifically Azure, to manage workloads distributed across on-premises and the public cloud. Additionally, we employ Azure Stack for certain floor-based or edge computing solutions, particularly in locations such as factories, to store, maintain, and support specific operations.

Azure Stack serves a crucial role in our hybrid cloud strategy because we can't place all our data in the public cloud for various reasons. One key use case for Azure Stack is data localization, especially in countries like Australia and Denmark where strict data regulations are in place. For applications and data that cannot leave the country, we rely on Azure Stack to maintain and manage them locally. Meanwhile, for other workloads, we leverage the public cloud, predominantly Azure, to meet our requirements.

One of the features I really appreciate is the Hybrid Cloud Extension UI. It simplifies the management of workloads across on-premises, public cloud, and edge locations through a single interface. This functionality streamlines the management process for me. Another aspect I find valuable is the consistency Azure Stack offers. It provides a uniform experience, from service names to user interface, whether I'm working in the cloud, on-premises, or at the edge. This consistency is crucial in managing various deployment scenarios. Lastly, Azure Stack's ability to function in isolated or remote areas, such as factory and plant locations with limited network connectivity, is highly valuable. This synced operation capability ensures smooth operations even in challenging environments.

One aspect that I consider a drawback is the cost associated with Azure Stack, as its deployment expenses tend to be on the higher side compared to other solutions. Another significant challenge is integration, especially with third-party products. While Azure Stack seamlessly integrates with Microsoft's own tools and platforms, there is room for improvement in its compatibility with third-party solutions. Lastly, although updating and patching Azure Stack is more straightforward than in older Windows versions, there is still room for enhancement in the upgrade and patch management process.

I have been using the solution for more than 18 months.

It is definitely stable and I would rate it nine or eight out of ten.

It's a bit complex to scale and I would rate it a seven out of ten.

The customer service is good. 

Positive

The reason we lean towards Azure Stack over competitors is that it offers strong integration with the public cloud, specifically Azure. Many of our clients use Microsoft 365, and this leads to a significant presence of Azure workloads. Additionally, a substantial portion of our servers run on Windows. These factors make Azure Stack a favorable choice for us. When comparing it to Nutanix, Azure Stack stands out in terms of its integration with the public cloud and, in some cases, cost-effectiveness.

The initial setup is moderate, not extremely simple but not very complex. It is hybrid but depends on the requirements of the client. The percentage of workloads on Azure Stack varies across our customers, ranging from ten percent to sixty percent. We opt for Azure Stack as a hybrid solution when a customer has some workloads on the public cloud. Typically, we set up Azure Stack in an on-premises data center and migrate workloads from existing environments, such as VMware or Hyper-V, to Azure Stack. 

However, if the workloads are primarily for the public cloud, we migrate them directly to the public cloud. The choice between Azure Stack and public cloud migration depends on various factors, including connectivity, compliance, costs, and other specific requirements. In essence, our Azure Stack environments are hybrid, with around thirty to forty percent of workloads residing on-premises and the remaining fifty to sixty percent in the public cloud.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

The pricing falls in the middle. It serves as a mediator between being expensive and being affordable, but it's not exactly cheap either. I would rate it a six out of ten.

I would overall rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to run our ERP software and mail servers.

The product has impacted our edge computing needs in a good way.

The best thing about the product is that it is very complex. Microsoft has a solution for everything we need. We just need to use it. The tool has simplified our application development. Integrating and managing on-premises resources using Azure Stack is easier than other platforms like Canonical and OpenShift. The solution is more mature than its competitors.

Some tools do not run without the internet. If we have connectivity problems or need to install an application without the internet, we cannot do it.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool is very scalable. We have around 50 users in our organization.

The tool is very simple to deploy. The deployment takes two to three hours. It is easy to maintain the product. We need a team of two to three persons with expertise in networking, storage and server setup, virtualization, and Kubernetes.

The pricing model is consumption-based. We pay as we go. Our overall cost is lower. Some things in the pricing model are a bit confusing. The vendor has two pricing systems. One is for Azure Stack, which is on the cloud. We also install and use it on-premises. The difference in price for the two is not very clear most of the time in the documentation. The tool is affordable.

Overall, Azure is better than Canonical and OpenShift. The overall portfolio is better. Canonical and OpenShift have limited product lines. I also need to use third-party products along with them. With Azure, everything can be installed from the dashboard, and Microsoft has a very rich product portfolio.

We are using Microsoft products. We also bundle it with some of the solutions we provide to our customers. We don't need compliance at this moment. Azure Stack is not very popular in the HCI industry. We have used VMware and Nutanix. Compared to them, Azure Stack is a better solution. When it comes to Kubernetes, Microsoft is a leader in Gartner. It is very mature. Overall, I rate the products a nine out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for normal production and visibility of our systems. We have 400 users and are at proof of concept while we complete governance. 

The solution integrates and runs well with other Microsoft tools. 

The whole package works very well together for identity management, defending endpoints or servers, and the CM.

Documentation for enrollment is very good. 

The solution could be less expensive. 

So many new features are added at a fast pace that it is sometimes hard to keep up with all the solution offers. 

I have been using Microsoft-based solutions for 23 years. The solution has been added to the mix along the way. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We do not have scalability experience because we are in the process of finalizing the cloud adoption framework and giving the green light for production. We have to finalize the governance and other things before we will allow production. While we wait, we are using the solution for proof of concept things. 

Technical support has worked very well.

From our experiences, technical support is rated a ten out of ten. 

Positive

If you want to do setup right, then it requires time and is complex. The risks are high if you deploy too quickly. 

We are partnered with consultants for implementation to ensure proper governance and frameworks. 

We will have an agreement with a partner to provide support and maintain at least a part of the solution with our in-house team. 

Pricing could be improved so I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use Microsoft products but did conduct a lightweight comparison. Because we rely very heavily on Microsoft on-premises, we immediately saw the benefits of using the solution instead of AWS or Google. 

The solution is developing very fast so new features are always being added. It is almost hard to keep up with everything the solution offers. 

The solution has been working very well for our company. For financial institutions, I recommend its use along with Microsoft Identity.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We're using the latest version.

It's deployed on the cloud, mainly as a Kubernetes container.

It's more reliable, secure, and easy to deploy. It's much more stable as a platform.

There's Azure SQL Database on the cloud for small loads, but now they're moving to Synapse, which has a combination of the storage plus the analytics. 

I've been using this solution for more than six years.

It's stable. We haven't had any significant down times, because now you have redundancy across networks. We have not come across any situation where any disruptions have occurred, at least on the cloud connectivity.

It's absolutely scalable. We haven't had any challenges with scalability.

We had some issues, and we directly raised a defect bug to them so they could sort it out. I haven't heard teams complaining about that. I don't see any challenge right now because the stack is much stabler, easier, and we haven't needed to reach out.

Positive

Both AWS and Azure are the best in the world right now. 

It all depends on what our customers need, so we use both.

One or two people are needed to maintain this solution.

I would rate the pricing 4 out of 5. It could be lower.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.