Microsoft Azure Reviews

I know Azure. We have the tools for optimized Azure infrastructure. As a partner, as an active integrator, I am looking only for plays to make the deal. I am not an end user, prospector or client. I use it in my projects but I am not buying any solution from Microsoft for ourselves. I am the seller.

When I talk about the Infrastructure as a Service from the Microsoft, I am referring to a hybrid infrastructure. We are talking about the moving of virtual machines and workload from on-premise system to the Cloud. This is my main topic when we are talking with the client. My technical team worries about the details of how we do this. I am not so good in the technical details.

In terms of our customers' use cases, in our last project, the customers migrated the SAP system from on-premise to the Azure with SQL as a database. We helped the customer to compare on-premise infrastructures and Infrastructure as a Service in Azure, and to help them migrate the machines, the tech, and the servers from on-premise to the Cloud and to have the tools from the Quest to help them optimize because they did not want to pay so much. They only wanted to pay by use. We are looking for the perfect tier from Azure to finish the project. This was our job. That's why I like the Azure.

There is not too much perfect information out there about how to optimize the infrastructure. Microsoft is looking for the bills where the sky is the limit but the customer is looking for the real cost. We help the customer and we have the answers regarding which tier or which configuration in Azure is proper for them.

Microsoft Azure is so complicated inside. If you should do something internally, if you have to configure something, the opinion about Azure is that it is a little complicated inside. That's why the end users and clients are looking for help and why we help them configure and do anything inside of Azure. That is why we offer other tools to optimize the Azure environment.

Microsoft makes the space for such tools because it is a little complicated and end users know it. That's why we sell these tools to optimize the Azure. I think the Microsoft team knows this and they create the space for other third party partners.

I know all the points about how the Cloud is so beautiful but if somebody starts to do something inside the Azure, it is a little hard to understand. Many services are so complicated to configure out. That's why sometimes clients are obviously confused inside the Azure. That's why they are looking for help with it and why they are looking for a Microsoft partner with the knowledge of how to connect this software into one solution. From my perspective, I like Azure because it makes me money from the end user clients. But for the customers, their opinion is, "Oh, my god. The AWS is easy."

It is well-known that Microsoft is not so easy for the end users. Maybe it's because there is a note of everything changing. They add new features and new functionalities. Azure is growing. From my point of view it's okay. From the customers, it's also ok, but they are looking for someone who understands how to configure it.

From the beginning, the first move to Azure as a solution, it's a long journey with many, many services to find the final configuration for the customer. But it's okay for me.

In terms of scalability, it is perfect. If you are a rich partner or a rich company and you have a lot of money on your credit card, the scalability and the possibility of using Azure is a perfect play. If you want two servers, if you want 200 servers, it's one click. From the marketing point of view, it's the perfect place to spend the money. I think the customers are really worried about the cost. If you request a lot of machines, it's only one click in the setup but the bill for that is so huge. They ultimately worry about how to prepare their production environment just for us. Not for the sky is the limit but for our requirements to help. We have tools for monitoring consumption of the Azure and we can switch virtual machines off when at the end of the day. Customers are happy that we offer that because they are a little worried.

For example, if you buy one huge service for your on-premise project, you pay for that one service. But if you put a development team on the project and they request a lot of virtual machines because it's so easy to deploy, someone should pay for that. This is literally one big worry from the client side.

The calculator from Microsoft for Azure is very basic. This tool only shows what you consumed and what you will pay. There is no answer if you want to know how big a credit card you need to run the project. We make money answering exactly how much you really need for your project. We save the budget for the customer. We find opportunities for Microsoft but when the customer is worried, we help them. It's also good for Microsoft because they run the project.

We have support but Microsoft is trying to cover only Azure as an infrastructure.

They are not interested in talking about current applications or current systems from a customer perspective. This is the job for the partner. Microsoft covers only the chief environment. The job for the partner is caring about the customer's real needs. That's our job.

We only have experience with AWS because for us it doesn't matter whether we run virtual machines on AWS or Azure. If the client is only looking for power servers, then the machine they are looking for is AWS. If they are not only looking for IaaS, Infrastructure as a Service, but are also looking for the DaaS or Database as a Service, they are looking for Azure. It is exactly the same way for customers that are using SQL Server. The first choice is Azure.

If you are looking for Oracle, they're thinking about AWS. Of course, if we are talking about the containerization, about the Kubernetes, AWS is also the first choice for our clients.

The initial setup depends on the project. Because we are the Microsoft partner and we have some money for our internal tests we do the setup part. We use Azure infrastructure for our demo when we show our virtual demo machine. For my colleagues, it's not so complicated but we are using only a very small part of Azure.

When we talk about the real project, it is not so easy. We are using a very basic functionality, but I know from the other projects that it is not so easy to implement, run, test, et cetera because it's always a little complicated. Maybe it's okay. It depends on the current customer's needs.

ROI is a very tough topic because with the first step, every customer is trying to compare what they pay on the infrastructure and what they will pay in Azure. This is never the same number.

The challenge is to show to customers the added value because Azure is not only a different type of data center, but is also a place where you can make the innovations and add some new services. It is much easier than on-premise. We have a lot of ready-to-use functionalities on Azure, but the magic is how to use it.

Sometimes, the customer does not have the knowledge to create new value for the business using the ready-to-use functionality on Azure from the Microsoft offer. This is the challenge.

Moving the one virtual machine is easy but knowing how to run your business application for the customer, this is the main challenge.

My advice to anyone considering Azure is if they want to make jumping to the Azure or to the Cloud easier, they should focus on and discuss what the steps are. When you are on premise, figure out the development and how to configure it to the Azure. I have had so many marketing presentations from Microsoft saying, "Oh, it's easy. You have the Advisor. Blah, blah, blah." This is pure marketing. The clients know it is only a commercial about Azure. If Microsoft wants to really get customers, they should help them step by step by showing them how it is easy and how to control every step of the project. They should care more about the customers during this type of project. If you did 10 project delegations, the next one is much easier, but the first is really not so easy. That's why customers are afraid about migrating to the Azure. "What about the bills? What about how to administrate? How long to build the infrastructure?" There are a lot of questions from the customer side.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure a seven. That is because there is always space for improvement. For me it's okay. It's reliable and it really works.

We primarily use the solution for our infrastructure. It's specific to server regulation and desktop regulation.

We used it for our customers in the pandemic. In terms of expansion on-premise, they were not able to do so due to the chip shortage. Therefore, we are moving everything to cloud and we are capacity-building - a temporary requirement. We are shifting them to the cloud.

As a partner, I like that they have a good benefit on margin.

The stability has been excellent. Multi-regions can leverage their capabilities easily.

The product is scalable.

We find the initial setup to be very simple. 

There are worldwide issues on Microsoft Azure, however, it is happening to Google also and as well as AWS. The problems we have are nothing new.

Technical support needs to be better.

I've been dealing with the solution for three years now.

The stability of the product has been great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product is scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it can do so.

We have 30 customers on the solution right now.

Technical support isn't so good. We'd like them to be more helpful and responsive. We'd like them to be faster.

The communication and those aspects are pretty good, however, the resolution could be faster and better.

As a cloud-based solution, the initial setup is very simple, very straightforward. 

We were able to deploy the solution in one day for a few clients. 

We have 20 team members that are technical (Azure system admins) and can handle the deployment and maintenance. We offer 24/7 coverage.

We offer this solution to our clients and can implement it for them.

The licensing is based on usage. Typically, it's a monthly fee that is paid to Microsoft.

We are a Microsoft Gold partner where we provide that, also we are users.

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

Customers who are on more Office 360 should leverage Azure. From a compliance perspective, these things are much more user-friendly compared to other clouds. Otherwise, there are a lot of compliance issues if we go with the other clouds where the mobility license is required. On Azure, for Microsoft users, those things are straightforward.

The advantage of Microsoft Azure is its simplicity. It's easy to launch a project. However, the problem with this kind of solution is the reliability for the customers. You have to be sure to stay with Microsoft.

It's not always simple to manage the team who use it. Sometimes customers abuse the capacity and it's not always easy to bill the department for the usage.

Microsoft Azure is not always a user-friendly solution. There are too many people who develop this solution. For the end-users, sometimes it's not really fun to use or simple to use. It could be improved.

It's difficult to stop the solution when you have started, you need to use it for the long term. You have to make a good choice when you start the project with Microsoft or with Amazon too. You will have the same problem, once you choose one you have to commit.

When a feature doesn't exist in Microsoft Azure, generally we can use other software that does the job very well, such as backups or supervision. Any products to help the customers and engineers to do a good job, such as managing large infrastructure. There is a lot of solution to make it work well.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately three years.

The stability of the solution was good we have not had a problem.

The scalability is good, there are nearly no limits, and simple to do. However, it is difficult to see the limit.

My engineers sometimes have used the support, I don't have any feedback about troubles with the support. I think the support is good. I don't have bad feedback.

The deployment of the solution is quick and easy.

My advice to others is to be sure if they choose the cloud it is the right choice for them. A customer can be in a hybrid solution, or cloud, or on-premise solution. I prefer the hybrid solution, in the same project. It's a choice they need to make for the long term.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

I use Microsoft Azure for different clients. I have different workloads or different architecture in Azure.

The most common use case is for migrations from on-premise to cloud. The principal solution is for a virtual machine, storage, and networking. 

The principal features that I use include computing, networking, and storage.

The elasticity within the cloud is great for clients to complete their pre-determined goals.

The cost is pretty good. They have a pay-per-use way of dealing with licensing that is very attractive. Migrating to the cloud becomes very attractive due to this.

The solution can scale.

Stability has been good.

Maybe Microsoft could improve its monitoring around the networking.

Clarity on the cost of the things could be better in some cases. For example, it's difficult to do a report with the cost of the things in Azure. Their calculator to estimate the cost needs to improve in terms of the estimation they provide.

I have five years of experience with this product.

There are some products that have good stability and virtual machines - depending on your setup and configuration - are very good. With Microsoft Azure, it's very rare that I even have a problem with it. In any solution, there's always some form of issue, however, with this, it's less common.

I've found the scalability to be quite good. 

I have worked with clients that have 300 users or more, however, sometimes with a smaller client they will have maybe 60 or 100 users.

Technical support is very good, however, it depends on the problem. There are some problems that originate with the client itself that Microsoft, naturally, couldn't necessarily resolve due to the origin of the problem. However, in general, I haven't had any problems with the support with Microsoft. They are helpful and responsive. 

Whether the initial setup is straightforward or complex depends on the client. There are some products that are more complex to set up. However, for me, it's easy to deploy different features or different products. It's easier compared to on-premise deployments.

Deployments can be two to three months for an enterprise.

For maintenance, you need a good team with good skills in Microsoft Azure, especially in the cloud due to the fact that it's a bit different. Things are different in the cloud compared with on-premise. 

I am able to deploy the solution for clients. 

I work with a team in my company. When, for example, we need help or support from Microsoft, we have a contact with the architect of this provider to resolve some issue or some problem that we have in the cloud.

The pricing is quite good, and it is designed as pay-per-use.

We are partners with Microsoft.

I am an architect, cloud architect, and I work in design solutions and implementing solutions in the cloud.

I'd rate the product at an eight out of ten.

I'm the technical manager of our company and we are customers of Microsoft. 

We're able to provide our customers with what they want and very quickly.

This solution is quick, fluent and elastic. It's very easy to build a new service and get it into production. 

The solution is too expensive.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, it's one of the main advantages. 

Customer service is pretty good for what I need. 

The initial setup is not very complex. It's quite straightforward to get a new platform and be in production. We carried out the implementation ourselves. We have 350 employees and everybody uses Azure. We have four IT professionals dealing with maintenance.

We spend around $10,000 per month on licensing and that's just for Azure. In addition, there is a per user charge for using Office 365.

The policy of the company is to use Microsoft products. We took a look at Google and AWS, but very quickly decided to go with Azure. It's a well-known solution and the decision was taken by the finance department.

Stability and simplicity of use play an important role, so I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

I am a Team Lead of Information Security Control. We currently have 200 users working with Azure in our organization. 

Capacity planning has played an important part in working with Azure because it estimates all of the business goals and translates messages into the technology that is required to support.

The ability to create the actual resource on the private cloud is easy to manage with Microsoft Azure.

The response time and stability of Microsoft Azure need to be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for four years.

The maintenance of this solution is done through Microsoft's partner, I would consider the service acceptable.

The initial deployment was done by Microsoft. The integration experience was good. The deployment and configuration was easy.

I would recommend working with Azure as this is a easy tool to use. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10.

I was testing the integration capabilities. I deployed a simple solution with a front and back end with an SQL database. For the server-less solution, it was just to interact with the database. That's what kind of the load that I was testing. The use case was to integrate with the directory, authenticate, and then consume some of the services there.

One of the services that I found to be great is the connector. For example, the other day, I was creating an application for internal research. With that connector, it was really easy to integrate some services to interact with the connectors. The credential allows you to authenticate with the active directory. Then, with that authentication, you can have the assurance that the people who are consuming the application are the right ones.

I know there have been a lot of improvements and a lot of new services lately. I'm really not aware of all of them.

One thing which is great is that they give users hub integration. That's a strong aspect, which would be good for many people and clients and developers so that they have that integration right away.

I haven't checked the console for some time, however, compared to the AWS console, the interaction console of the web part, the web services, it's not so easy. That will be a good area to improve, which is to make the console for interaction with services a little easier.

Another point to improve could maybe be the pricing model or maybe the interaction with information. When you look for information in AWS, it's more straightforward and clear. It's hard to find that information on Azure.

I used the solution for maybe one month at the beginning of maybe March of this year. I was doing some tests with Microsoft Azure. I was deploying some services.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is fine. However, it may be another thing to improve. I haven't look looked at it in some time, however, I remember at the beginning, I tried to research for the price, for rates, and things. I didn't find it easy to locate, which made it hard to gauge the cost of scaling. 

From my side, I don't plan to increase usage. Right now, I'm working for other clients, and with the solutions of the clients. For research purposes, I will do maybe one or two instances, just for testing. It's not a big deal.

While I've never needed technical assistance, my understanding is that it's pretty good.

It was not very difficult to set up the solution. In the beginning, it's a bit difficult to just find the services and things like that. They need a kind of list or something, something more visible. That would help. 

Our implementation was not too big. It took maybe two days. Another deployment we did took maybe three. I'm not really a complete expert. It might have taken a bit longer for me due to my lack of experience.

I did not use consultants or resellers for deployment. I did it myself. There wasn't too much pressure. I was doing the deployment more for research purposes. 

The price of the solution is unclear. it's hard to find the costs. 

The company I am working for is a Microsoft partner.

I'd advise potential new users to try to get as much information as possible about licensing and about the products that they are going to use. That will be good to have a very clear understanding of. Beyond that, it's not a problem to get started and go.

I'd rate the product at an eight out of ten.

The use case varies by client. Sometimes it's financial tools or websites. We build tools for DevOps applications too. Our most recent use cases are retail and construction.

Virtual machine services, in SaaS services, M365, and Data Lake are all popular with our clients. 

When you use one feature in six months or a year, it changes for the others, and it isn't very easy. The filters are too complicated. I'd like to see better integration with S/4HANA integrated and other services, like monitoring, for example.

I've used Microsoft Azure for approximately two or three years.

Azure is highly scalable.

In my experience, Microsoft support is outstanding. We're Microsoft partners, so when we need support, we get it immediately. 

I think the setup is complicated, but if you have experience with other Microsoft products, you should be able to figure it out. The time needed for deployment depends on the client and the solution. For example, it's very different in the case of Data Analytics, which took us two or three months to deliver the solution. 

The price of Azure is competitive with other cloud providers. 

I rate Azure nine out of 10.