No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Azul Zulu vs Cloudinary comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Azul Zulu
Ranking in AI Content Creation
12th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (11th), AI Customer Experience Personalization (25th)
Cloudinary
Ranking in AI Content Creation
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Digital Asset Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the AI Content Creation category, the mindshare of Azul Zulu is 1.1%. The mindshare of Cloudinary is 1.2%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AI Content Creation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cloudinary1.2%
Azul Zulu1.1%
Other97.7%
AI Content Creation
 

Featured Reviews

BasilJiji - PeerSpot reviewer
System engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Standardized our Java estate and have reduced licensing costs while maintaining strong support
Azul Zulu's ability to allow us to standardize our Java estate on a single and well-supported platform stands out as one of its best features. This standardization simplifies our compliance audits and ensures all our applications receive timely security updates.Azul Zulu positively impacts our organization by providing a platform that allows us to standardize Java on a well-supported platform. Without the high cost associated with other proprietary vendors, Azul Zulu provides an excellent platform for running our applications.
Josue BYIRINGIRO - PeerSpot reviewer
ATLP Technical Mentor at Andela
Saves time and resources and has a clear dashboard
I like the tool best because it's straightforward and doesn't have too many complicated options like AWS. The dashboard is clear - you create a directory, get credentials, and then use those in your Node.js or Java application to access resources. With AWS, you have to consider many things, like bucket policies and user permissions. It doesn't have these complications. Everything on Cloudinary is clearer than other platforms I've seen. It is very easy to use. It's easier than the AWS platforms I've seen. Even general developers can use it, while AWS needs more experience. The solution saves time and resources in several ways. It's easy to get started with, saving time from the beginning. You can implement file uploads in about thirty minutes without complications. The SDK and APIs provided to access their resources are simple and not complicated. Cloudinary is also a popular platform with good documentation and community support, making it easy to find solutions to problems.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I joined this project which had already been underway for approximately six months, and in two months, I refactored the whole project and wrote it, and it is functional."
"We've had no issues with stability."
"We achieved specific outcomes from using Azul Zulu by reducing our Java licensing and support costs by approximately 70% when compared to our previous Oracle contract."
"One of the best features of the platform is that we have a generous free tire that I can use for some of my projects without worrying about the platform's cost."
"Cloudinary provides a free plan for developers wanting to get started or explore its capabilities."
"As a developer, I find Cloudinary valuable because it provides many opportunities for building applications."
"The platform is very easy to use. The documentation is excellent, and the implementation involves only a few simple steps. It is accessible to users with varying levels of expertise."
"The most important advantage of using Cloudinary is that it is very easy to integrate with the SDK, especially with Node.js."
"Cloudinary will check for corrupted video or audio files and can re-encode them into different formats without much effort—you modify the URL, and it handles everything server-side."
"Cloudinary automatically optimizes the images for the browser, so instead of making a choice yourself for images like JPEG, PNG, AVIF, or WEBP, the client or end user's browser might support them, but Cloudinary takes that decision for you, and it just serves the right image or the best-optimized image, which is sort of safe."
"I use the solution for posting images."
 

Cons

"I think Azul Zulu can be improved by always thinking about productivity, as most languages tend to evolve in that direction."
"It needs a better update daemon. At this time the process is manual and could be an issue on multiple desktop deployments."
"Improvements for Azul Zulu could include more automated tools for unused code visibility integrated directly into the standard portal to help further optimize our cloud footprints."
"Looking at its credits, I think Cloudinary can be scalable. However, when you compare it to the AWS S3 bucket, you have more options for scalability with AWS."
"One thing that comes to mind is the capability for hosting very large video files, similar to platforms like YouTube."
"The main issue with the package is how it handles errors. It swallows errors and throws its own, but without preserving the stack trace, making debugging nearly impossible."
"The AI does not offer image generation."
"I believe there is some scope for improvement in areas like the dashboard, specifically the user dashboard and the browser where you can navigate the platform."
"I haven't really thought about what improvements I’d like to see in Cloudinary recently. One thing that comes to mind is the capability for hosting very large video files, similar to platforms like YouTube. Cloudinary is not as widely known for video uploads as other platforms, and it would be great if it had a larger user base for this purpose. Apart from marketing and video uploading, I haven't identified specific features or functionalities that need improvement. It’s been a while since I actively used Cloudinary, and I’m just starting to get back into it. Once I’m more familiar with it again, I’ll have a better idea of any gaps or areas for enhancement. I’ll need to think more about this and might provide feedback later."
"The UI needs improvement because it has become quite messy recently, making it difficult to locate the media library and images."
"We decided to quit using Cloudinary after two years because we were getting a lot of users, and it was becoming expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"If you are just starting out, the tool is actually free. You don't have to pay any fee, except if you have a large volume of files and documents you want to host."
"I have not used the product's paid subscription, as the free tier is sufficient for most users."
"The product's free tier licensing plan is beneficial for individual developers to learn about its functionality."
"From what I've used, it's actually cheap compared to other options like AWS."
"We decided to quit using Cloudinary after two years because we were getting a lot of users, and it was becoming expensive. Cloudinary had fixed charges, so if we agreed to pay 500 USD per month, it would be the same whether we used high or low resources. They would notify us if we exceeded our limit, but not if we used less—however, AWS charges according to usage, which became more cost-effective for us as we grew. With AWS, you might pay 100 one month and 200 the next, depending on your usage."
"The solution’s pricing is moderate."
"I am using the free version."
"It is a free tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AI Content Creation solutions are best for your needs.
913,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
Outsourcing Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
12%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Azul Zulu?
Improvements for Azul Zulu could include more automated tools for unused code visibility integrated directly into the standard portal to help further optimize our cloud footprints. The other core J...
What is your primary use case for Azul Zulu?
Azul Zulu serves as our primary Java runtime, providing a stable, 100% open-source, and certified solution for our production microservices. We utilize it to ensure cross-platform compatibility acr...
What advice do you have for others considering Azul Zulu?
My advice for others looking into using Azul Zulu is to perform a pilot migration with one non-critical application first. You will likely find that it is truly a drop-in replacement, which will gi...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cloudinary?
I did not research Cloudinary's pricing, as I am using it for free. In the free service, it performs well.
What needs improvement with Cloudinary?
The UI needs improvement because it has become quite messy recently, making it difficult to locate the media library and images. Additionally, the initial setup process is complex due to the numero...
What advice do you have for others considering Cloudinary?
I would advise new users to read the documentation thoroughly to understand how to upload and store images effectively. For those using Cloudinary for the first time, be prepared for a learning cur...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, Kyocera, OKI, Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise, Voya Financial
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Azul Zulu vs. Cloudinary and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
913,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.