Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure for PaaS, SaaS, and IaaS solutions. It is used in a broad spectrum of business applications for general use.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the integration between all of the components in Azure.

There are always areas for improvement. The integration is good but it can always be better.

The openness and the security policies can be better. It is missing a bit in everything related to the policies.

I would like to see better policy-based management and everything related to security management could have been better integrated.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for six years, and in my current company for more than two years.

We are using the latest version. It is a SaaS solution it is always updated

Microsoft Azure is stable and it's a reliable solution.

It is absolutely scalable. It is one of the major reasons we adopted public clouds, to have that scalability.

We have approximately 10,000 users who use at least some of the features of this solution.

We have contacted technical support. Overall we are pretty happy, but sometimes they are responsive and other times they are less responsive.

The initial setup is complex but it is more to do with the nature of what we want to achieve and less to do with the nature of the product.

To a certain extent, it is complex, but on the other hand, once you know what you are doing, nothing is complex.

Licensing is on a monthly basis. It is paid on a per-use basis.

I am quite happy with the pricing. You pay for what you get.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others who are interested in this solution.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

Microsoft Azure is mainly used for legacy system migration. We also use it for platform development and new custom development package solutions.

The solution is very easy to use.

The product has been stable and the performance is good.

It's very flexible. We find that it is easy to integrate with other Microsoft technologies such as Microsoft Office.

The solution scales quite well.

Technical support is very helpful.

There aren't limitations that come to mind. Whatever they have planned for the solution in the future, I will be happy with it.

The solution could always work to reduce its costs.

It would be ideal if the solution could offer more non-Microsoft-related integration capabilities.

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

We have found the stability and performance to be quite good. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The solution is very scalable. If a company would like to expand it, it can do so.

Currently, we have around 1,000 users.

We've found Microsoft's technical support to be good. they are helpful and responsive and so far, we are satisfied with their level of assistance.

I also have experience working with AWS, Amazon Web Services.

I was not a direct part of the installation, therefore, I can't really comment. I can't directly speak to if the process was easy or difficult.

The pricing could be a bit lower. It would make their customers happy if they decided to charge less.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

We are customers and end-users, however, we are also advisors. We give advice on products to our customers.

As the solution is cloud-based, it's consistently updated and we are always on whatever the latest version is. 

We've been quite happy with its capabilities. I'd rate it at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users or companies that want to start exploring it.

As the solution is cloud-based, we always use the latest solution. 

We make use of the solution in the cloud for specific internal applications.

Use of the solution could be easier. It is too complex.

The solution is not sufficiently informative and there is a need to wade through much information. 

Moreover, we find it lacking when it comes to active dashboards. This is problematic when looking to Teams, as it does not allow one to know what is transpiring in real time, such as when there are concurrent conferences. This information only becomes available the following day. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure Review for three years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Microsoft's technical support is good. There is no room for improvement. 

We looked at web user before going with the solution. 

As the solution is cloud-based there is no installation involved. 

The license is on a monthly basis.

There are approximately 100 users utilizing the solution in our organization.

I would definitely recommend it to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure as a seven out of ten. 

We use Microsoft Azure for enterprise applications.

I like that it is user-friendly and flexible.

It's done a really good job. It's an up-to-the-mark product.

There are many features available in Azure, including hundreds of products. There are more than 200. It is difficult to find fault in this product.

While Microsoft Azure is user-friendly, some of the other cloud products I use are more user-friendly. I use AWS and I like it more than I like Microsoft Azure.

I would like to see the console improved.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for two years.

The scalability of Microsoft Azure is a valuable feature.

We have approximately 50 users in our organization and plan to increase our usage.

Technical support is good.

Previously, I was using AWS.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The installation time varies; it can take as little as five minutes or as long as several hours.

Because there are so many products, we have quite the team. We have anywhere from five to ten people to manage and maintain the complete infrastructure.

I completed the installation myself. I did not use an integrator or consultant.

We have a subscription and the price is reasonable.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure to others who are interested in using it. It's a good product.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

We buy licenses in order to provide an ecosystem on Microsoft, using Azure for documents and also for accessing Office 365 and for corporate messaging and so on.

We use Azure for everything. For example, we use Microsoft Teams on Azure for our conference calls and we also use scrum tools and project management tools as well. we use it on endpoints to work in remote places. Our CRM and procurement platforms sit on Azure. There's also antivirus features on it.

The solution is good for enterprise control and managing various systems.

The solution is quite stable.

The scalability has been good.

We haven't seen any security gaps as of yet. It feels very safe.

The initial setup is very easy.

Technical support has been extremely helpful.

We need more security to be available on our smartphones and mobile devices. They need to improve the protections available in that area in particular. We're actually currently looking for solutions that will protect devices of this nature so that they can safely access the corporate network. 

We began to use this solution last year, in 2020, when we begin to have to do remote work.

The stability of the solution is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance has been good. 

The scalability of Azure is very good. If a company wants to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

We have about 300 endpoints in our organization that use Microsoft Azure. 

The technical support on offer is very good. If we ever need help or extra assistance, they are happy to jump in. We're quite satisfied with the level of service on offer.

The installation was mostly straightforward, although we did run into a few small issues. We had the local Microsoft team assist us, however. For the most part, everything ran smoothly.

It typically takes two to four hours to install everything.

We have a technical team of 15 people that can handle deployment and maintenance as necessary. They are IT and help desk personnel as well as two managers. We also have a team that focuses on cybersecurity and information protection.

Our local Microsoft team helped with the installation.

We're on a three-year standard license. We do have to pay for licensing.

We haven't looked at other solutions. We prefer sticking with Azure.

We're customers and end-users.

We use both the cloud and on-premises. 

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's very good, however, it has room to grow.

I'd highly recommend the solution to other individuals and organizations.

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 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.

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 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 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.