Microsoft Azure Reviews

Azure is a cloud provider. We use Azure services for various purposes, including PowerApps for app development and Azure DevOps for software development and operations.

We find Azure particularly beneficial when working with clients who are heavily invested in Microsoft solutions. It necessitates that we also leverage Azure for our solutions and services.

Azure offers a variety of services rather than features per se. 

The platform is quite self-service and adaptable.

It is secure. 

It can be cheaper, which might simplify things a bit.

We've started using Azure for the past year, although we are primarily an AWS shop.

It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

Since it is on the cloud, it is a scalable solution. 

We have a lot of end users using this solution. We use it on a daily basis. 

Since all our solutions are hosted on Azure, usage will naturally increase as our operations expand and we onboard more users.

We were using AWS and had a requirement that led us to start using Azure. We utilize all of them based on specific needs.

We use all three (Azure, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and AWS). It's about the use case and the requirements that dictate which one we choose.

I didn't handle the setup directly. Our IT team manages the provisioning of Azure services for us.

From what I understand, it was not particularly complex.

The implementation was handled by our IT team. We have a dedicated cloud team that provisions the services we request.

The return on investment largely depends on how and where you're using it.

We've seen significant savings in infrastructure costs. That's a primary advantage of using the cloud – it's fully managed, and you pay as you go, which is highly beneficial.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend Azure. When implementing cloud services, it's essential to consider the top three cloud providers today: Azure, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and AWS. 

Azure is stable and should be considered alongside these, depending on the use case.

Azure is utilized to facilitate computing needs for our clients' sites. Most often, it's employed to enable them to host their products in the cloud, manage disaster recovery, conduct backups, and host applications. Additionally, for clients with on-premise infrastructure, Azure serves to replicate that setup in the cloud. We offer Azure-based solutions to fulfill these requirements and seamlessly provide access to them, typically through domain access, after setting up payment arrangements.

Azure integration became crucial for a business facing cost-saving challenges. They were burdened by the physical space and maintenance costs of on-premise infrastructure. Additionally, issues like electricity outages prompted them to consider migrating certain infrastructure components to the cloud. This move aimed to alleviate space constraints, reduce maintenance expenses, and enhance reliability, potentially enabling them to divest part of their infrastructure in the future.

The scalability features of Azure had a significant impact on projects for our customers, particularly in one instance where a deal was lost due to scalability issues. This challenge doesn't necessarily stem from Azure itself but rather from the complexity of migrating third-party dependencies to the Azure environment. Often, the lack of proper documentation and understanding of how these dependencies were originally implemented poses obstacles.

Azure is highly valuable due to its cloud-based nature, which reduces the need for extensive hardware purchases and server maintenance costs. It serves as a quick and convenient solution for spinning up VMs, creating websites, and making businesses visible online. The platform's user-friendliness eliminates the need for lengthy training periods, enabling swift navigation for new users. Companies can easily onboard new personnel by providing them with relevant documents, allowing them to quickly grasp how to manage resources and create necessary components on Azure.

Azure Arc is incredibly valuable because it allows businesses to connect and secure their resources, regardless of where they are hosted. This means that even if they are using other cloud platforms like AWS or have on-premise infrastructure, they can still benefit from Azure's features. With Azure Arc, businesses can have centralized management and security across their entire environment, including legacy systems and other cloud providers. While Azure Arc may come with a higher cost, its ability to bridge different platforms and provide enhanced security makes it a compelling option for businesses looking to leverage Azure services without fully migrating their infrastructure.

Improvements are needed in Azure to enhance integration tools and support for effectively migrating and managing third-party dependencies. Additionally, there is a significant issue with payment restrictions on Azure, particularly for users in regions with limitations in their local economies. Integrating third-party payment services could alleviate this problem, allowing users from various international locations, such as China, Europe, and Africa, to make payments more seamlessly. By providing alternative payment methods beyond the reliance on US debit cards, Microsoft could greatly improve the usability and accessibility of Azure for users worldwide. There's room for improvement in integrating the Azure Marketplace with the Azure portal. It would be beneficial if users could directly communicate with solution owners or developers through the portal. For instance, if a user encounters challenges while using a particular solution from the marketplace, they could easily send an email, initiate a phone call, or even send an SMS to the solution owner or developer for assistance. This direct communication channel would streamline the troubleshooting process and foster better collaboration between users and solution providers, enhancing the overall user experience.

I have been working with it for a year.

Azure is highly stable, with only one instance of downtime experienced on a specific website and two occurrences in approximately nine months. Overall, it maintains a commendable level of stability, especially when availability zones are utilized. These zones provide critical redundancy, ensuring resilience against unforeseen events and offering a heightened level of reliability.

Azure's scalability is evident when building and adhering to the appropriate architectural principles. Challenges with scaling typically arise when existing platforms or third-party components are involved, making it difficult to align them for efficient scaling. However, Azure Arc aims to address this issue, though it may incur additional costs, especially at larger scales. While some customers may opt for traditional VM provisioning on Azure due to cost considerations, Azure Arc offers an alternative approach for scalability.

The technical support provided is exceptional, and I am extremely satisfied with it. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward.

The documentation provided by Azure for deployment processes to our customers is excellent. Typically, the process begins with signing NDAs followed by a call with the customer's team to understand their requirements. Once the requirements are clear, we review the architecture and assess the feasibility of replicating it on Azure, especially if migration is involved. Subsequently, we create a scope of work detailing the proposed actions and timelines, which the customer must sign off on. Upon agreement, we set a kickoff date and discussed requirements from the customer's end, such as authorization and authentication. During the project kickoff, we ensure someone is available on the customer's side to prevent breaches or delays. We then proceed with the deployment, moving necessary components and configurations. After completion, we conduct testing and allow the customer time to review the deployment, typically two to three weeks. Upon receiving approval, we finalize the project and obtain payment, usually within a timeframe of five days to two weeks, depending on the project's complexity

Azure's simplicity streamlines deployment, often requiring only five to six resources for larger projects. The specific roles may vary based on the project's needs, encompassing expertise in security, architecture, design, and product management.

In most cases, we inform the customer that we're available round-the-clock for feedback during the initial three months post-deployment. This ensures prompt resolution of any issues beyond their capability. If needed, we offer training for their team members. Additionally, customers have the option to enter into a support contract with us for ongoing assistance. Smaller projects may not necessitate ongoing management, depending on their setup.

Our customers often report a positive return on investment with Azure, as it helps them save costs. Whether they were previously on traditional infrastructure or on-premises setups, Azure proves to be beneficial, making it a worthwhile investment for them.

The pricing is relatively high.

I highly recommend Azure, as I use it myself. My advice would be for them to seriously consider it, especially when taking their budget into account. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use the product to stream data from devices to the system, transform data, and configure web apps using SaaS services.

One significant area for improvement in Microsoft Azure is the cost associated with its services. While integrating services from different vendors, the perceived costs are high, with occasional confusion about specific charges, especially in data transfer scenarios between regions. This cost factor poses a barrier for small companies, and they could simplify the process and reevaluate pricing structures.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for seven years.

The platform is stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I have worked with around 5000 Microsoft Azure users in our previous company. It is highly scalable.

In the IaaS approach, setting up virtual machines (VMs) allows for scalability adjustments based on memory and CPU consumption. Similarly, for applications developed with Azure RPA (Robotic Process Automation) or Azure Logic Apps, scalability can be efficiently managed by configuring the app service plan.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The experience with Microsoft's customer support has been middling, neither exceptionally good nor bad. The support team takes time to respond. It is a lengthy process and could be improved.

Neutral

The complexity of implementation depends on the different setups. We can utilize the portal, CLI, or alternative providers like Terraform. The deployment process in Azure varies based on the specific build requirements and the nature of the application being deployed, whether it's through GitHub or directly in Azure. The time taken for deployment in Azure varies greatly depending on factors such as the complexity of the application, the number of integrated applications, the volume of code, and the artifacts involved.

The product generates a return on investment in terms of time savings on setup, installation, and scalability. It also depends on the specific consumption patterns and the extent to which Azure services are utilized for our compute and networking needs.

The product is expensive, particularly with services such as Microsoft SQL Server incurring significant costs. It could be more competitive in terms of pricing.

Azure supports the development and hosting of various applications, including those built with ASP.NET. We have developed an application using ASP.NET versions 4, 6, and 7, and then deployed it to Azure for hosting. Data analytics is one of the efficient features as well.

The features I find most useful for cloud computing needs, particularly for fax services, include Azure RPA (Robotic Process Automation), Azure Logic App, and Azure Service Bus.

We can easily integrate the product with MS SQL Server and Azure SQL Database as a service. Further, we can utilize event apps within the IT infrastructure.

I have experienced significant benefits from Azure's security and compliance tools, particularly in the area of identity management. Working with Microsoft Identity, including Azure Active Directory (Azure AD), has proven valuable for operations involving customer-to-customer (CTC), business-to-customer (BTC), and business-to-business (B2B) scenarios. The customization capabilities help us with the registration of applications under Azure Active Directory, enabling robust authentication and authorization mechanisms.

I recommend the product for small companies or startups. It is also a good option for established companies planning to reach beyond certain limitations in terms of business.

I rate it a seven out of ten.

Microsoft Azure is a very dynamic cloud service that allows you to migrate your workload, applications, and data. We can use cloud services to run those environments or transform those applications into better services with high availability and resilience. It has multiple zones and multiple data centers.

When running any service on the cloud, the best advantage is that you can scale up and scale down. You can scale up your environment if there's a high-selling season for your application and services. Once that season is over, you can downscale and run operations.

The customer support can become pricey at times if you don't have proper plans.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for more than five years.

Microsoft Azure is a very stable solution.

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

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is great. The only thing is that the support can become pricey at times if you don't have proper plans. The cloud services are available for any problems you get into. The support is good, and now it's very stable.

Complexity-wise, the solution's initial setup is very medium. A lot of documentation, videos, training, and tutorials are available. Anybody who knows about cloud computing can learn, train themselves, and set up the solution. You need to keep enhancing your setup, configurations, and security.

You get a better return investment with Microsoft Azure for three to five years. Customers would incur hardware and infrastructure costs on their data center because they have to keep upgrading their hardware every three to five years. You need someone to maintain your redundancy, which costs too much.

That's why people go with the cloud, where you don't have to worry about anything. Microsoft data centers are developed in such a way that there is high availability and redundancy.

You just need to worry about your application and the access and security around it. You don't have to worry about all the underlying hardware, which is very cost-effective. If you choose the right SKUs for the costing part, you'll get your return on investment in three years.

All cloud services are available on a monthly licensing basis. Microsoft Azure has the concept of reserve instances. If you know that you would like to run your application for one year or three years, then you should go with the reserve instances. The monthly costs become very reasonable because of the discounts you get on longer reserved instances.

Microsoft is actively enhancing the solution. When it was first launched, the tool was a little more on the classic version, but then Microsoft improved and enhanced those services. Microsoft is currently working with a plethora of applications and services. A lot of things have already been done. Microsoft Azure is a very stable and in-demand cloud.

Most organizations are using Microsoft Azure because Microsoft is running their identity piece. If the identity is merged or synced with the cloud identity, everything develops and works around that. Several users and companies have grown quickly after using Microsoft Azure. In any organization, around 80% to 90% of users are using the cloud service.

Everyone should start using Microsoft Azure and try to get Microsoft certifications. Microsoft certifications have a lot of practical labs and scenario-based questions that prepare you for the actual deployment. So, Microsoft certifications are a must.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

In any general use case, if we want to run any application on our own virtual machines, that's Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). If we want to use a readily available managed service in Azure, like Azure Storage, Azure Security Center, or Logic Apps, those are Platform as a Service (PaaS) offerings.

This is because they're provided on the platform, and they manage them. We can run our data and applications on them. If we're using a complete application as a service provided by vendors, like Office 365 (including the email service), that's considered Function as a Service (FaaS) because we're not configuring anything on our end – we're just using it.

I'm involved in all kinds of services, whether it's IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS. It depends on the specific customer requirement.

We implemented Azure for our infrastructure needs. Our core components include virtual machines, virtual networks, network security groups (NSGs), load balancers, public IPs, and private IPs. For private endpoints, those are more specific to Platform as a Service (PaaS) offerings.

Additionally, we utilize a hub network with a firewall, DNS server, and Active Directory server (AD). This aligns with the enterprise landing zone concept, where a connectivity subscription with a hub network that includes a firewall, DNS, AD, Azure Monitor, etc., would be implemented.

These shared services reside in the hub network if we have on-premises servers or other large assets running in Azure.

For management purposes, we have a separate subscription – the management subscription – which includes Log Analytics workspace and other data monitoring tools. Finally, the landing zone itself would house our workloads and applications.

We rely on many security features to manage our Azure cloud environment. It's a kind of framework we follow. First, there's posture management with compliance by following specific regulations. Then, for specific services, mainly Azure Defender and Azure Sentinel are important. They use the latest threat intelligence to identify threats and vulnerabilities. 

On top of that, there are policies to ensure your security posture is maintained, followed by firewalls, Azure Defender, and Azure Sentinel for threat intelligence and response.

All these services are managed services and they are auto-scalable.

In Azure, there are so many things. Especially when dealing with different regions. Suppose we are far from a region and using it over the internet, then probably more Edge Zones in nearby cities would help. This would give easier access with no delay or latency.

Right now, the problem in many remote areas is they may have low-bandwidth internet connections. This can make it difficult to access large services that require more bandwidth to download data and such. So, if the service were closer, it would be faster to access. At least they could access it easily.

Again, there are many other suggestions from a technical perspective on different services. But this is just from a user's perspective, and user demographics can create challenges. Other users with very good access might not have latency or other issues, but they might have operational challenges.

For example, let's say ExpressRoute. It's very expensive and mainly available for enterprise customers. Suppose individual users want that kind of dedicated connectivity over a service provider like Airtel or Vodafone and have an ExpressRoute from their phone, but is there any availability for a lower-cost option?

Because it's very expensive as well, if there were any such services available at a lower cost, then that would really help customers, especially SMBs, to have more consistent and reliable applications.

The main improvement I expect is capacity improvement. For example, live streaming applications require a lot of backend computing power. During events like football matches, millions of requests can occur per second. Existing services might not be sufficient to handle this. 

We need to know the maximum scalability based on data center capacity limitations. In some cases, we have to deny customer requests due to insufficient capacity. So, improved scalability is a key area for development, and I'm sure other cloud providers face similar challenges.

There are a lot of services already in Azure, but from a regular user's perspective, improvements can be made to specific services and features. For example, in Kubernetes, initially, it was limited. You could only create a Kubernetes cluster in one subnet. 

If all the IPs in that subnet were used, you couldn't expand that subscription. That was an issue, but it's been addressed. Now, you can increase the number of nodes by creating a new node pool in the same cluster with additional subnets. Improvements like this feature-based approach can be applied to many services. 

Another key area for improvement is the Azure load balancer. Currently, it only supports virtual machines (VMs) running in the same virtual network (vNet) on the backend. 

They should definitely support machines or IPs running on-premises (prem) or in other Azure VNets. GCP and AWS already support that. So, Azure Load Balancer should support that as well because being able to provide support is a very basic requirement or a valid request from any customer. These kinds of feature requests can be improved from a cloud service provider's perspective.

I have been using Azure storage for five to six years. 

It is a stable solution because it depends on the workload you expect. Based on that data, you can configure how many users it can handle.

Managed services are definitely more efficient than IaaS and offer a performance-centric approach.

It is a scalable solution because it depends on how the user manages it. But any services we choose in Azure are inherently scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. Nothing is truly complex unless your solution or requirement itself is complex.

The deployment time depends on my requirements. Suppose a customer needs a very small environment, like two or three cluster machines with a standard load balancer on top, running their application on those VMs. It would hardly take 30 to 45 minutes to create the virtual machines (VMs), create a load balancer, allocate a public IP address, and set up a virtual network (vNet). 

At the very beginning, we had to create a subscription. Within the subscription, you'll create a resource group. And within the resource group, we'll be creating a virtual network. Inside the virtual network, we'll deploy the VMs, a load balancer, a public IP, and a network security group (NSG).

Additionally, if I want to make it more secure, I can create a firewall as well. So, all of these together should be deployable within an hour.

The number of people like developers required for the deployment depends on your environment. For instance, if you use an IaaS solution, you'll need more resources on your end to manage it. 

But with a PaaS service, you'll need fewer people because the cloud service provider manages half of it. With a SaaS solution, you don't need anyone to manage it – the cloud service provider handles the entire application. You just use it. 

So, it depends on the solution type. Therefore, more complex solutions require more resources to manage.

When we decide to increase capacity, we always consider the ROI and look at the projections for the next three to five years. Big investment decisions are only made based on that. 

Similarly, any customer considering adopting a service in Azure, like Azure SQL Database or Logic Apps, will first look at the return on investment. They'll consider how much they're investing in these services, how many users will be using them, and how much money they'll make from them. 

If it's not profitable based on their expectations or KPIs, they obviously won't add those services. So, it depends on the customer's specific requirements and expectations. We recommend the best possible services for their needs.

Azure licensing costs. We always compare licensing to the ROI.  Azure costing can be multi-layered. Increased capacity depends on your requirements and any contracts you have. On top of that, there's a separate cost for the licenses of the applications and operating systems you install in that capacity. 

So, as long as you're using the existing capacity, you won't be charged extra for that. However, if you increase capacity, you'll only be charged for the services you use on that additional capacity, not for the capacity itself. 

This depends on specific guarantees made in contracts that can last from two to eight years. These guarantees ensure investment has a return on investment. So, in that case, you wouldn't be charged for the additional capacity, just the services used on it.

Capacity increases based on customer requests are very rare, typically only for extremely high-volume scenarios. For example, millions of requests per second would require a service capacity increase beyond standard rates. Otherwise, we usually have enough capacity in different data centers across various regions.

Generally, most services and their licensing – it's that straightforward.

I would rate Azure an eight out of ten for managed services and IaaS a seven out of ten.

While I can advise, many factors influence decision-making. For example, if we invest in a ten-million-dollar data center capacity improvement, we need to see the return on investment within a one to three-year timeframe. If not profitable, such a large investment wouldn't be justifiable. 

Alternatively, customers could sign a five-year contract guaranteeing capacity usage and payment if we invest in the upgrade. These are the parameters that define decision-making in such situations.

Our use case involves running on-premises workloads on Microsoft Azure.

The tool has proven to be valuable for our organization by enhancing the availability and reliability of services. Our website and several applications hosted on it now benefit from improved availability features and increased reliability.

Microsoft Azure has significantly impacted operational efficiency by helping reduce or optimize costs, especially in the transition from on-premises capital expenditures to operational expenditures.

Navigating the frequent changes in the interface has been a challenge, requiring effort to keep up with updates. Options or features that were once located in one window may unexpectedly move to another, making it hard to stay current with the changes.

I have been using the product for three years. 

The tool's stability is good, and I would give it a nine out of ten. The challenges in connectivity, particularly when dealing with cloud services. It's complex and challenging to troubleshoot connectivity issues, especially when the source of the problem isn't clear.

The solution's scalability is excellent. My company has more than 500 users. We plan to increase the numbers. 

We chose to use Microsoft Azure primarily because of the package and solutions that Microsoft offered. The features and offerings provided by it were deemed to be better compared to other alternatives.

The product's deployment was a bit complex. The deployment process involved selecting the suitable Microsoft Azure service for migration and considering options like application services or virtual machines (servers). It required a thorough study to determine the most appropriate solution for the business use case. Our deployment team consists of ten resources. 

The deployment was a collaborative effort involving both our partners and the in-house team.

The value and benefits of using Microsoft Azure are significant, particularly for users like me. The services provided make it easy to access and available from anywhere.

The solution's licensing costs are yearly. 

We have initiated the migration of our on-premises workloads to the cloud, leveraging the application services offered by Microsoft Azure. We rely on third-party technologies for security. My advice would be to thoroughly plan and understand the cost implications before migrating to Microsoft Azure. Compare the technical capabilities of your on-premises design with your cloud design, and also conduct a financial comparison between on-premises and cloud expenses.

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use Microsoft Azure for data storage on the server. Additionally, we leverage Power Automate for process automation tasks. Some of our processes benefit from AI and ML capabilities, such as image processing and recognition. Specifically, we utilize the product for its Translation APIs, including language translation functionality.

We validate customer videos and speech in real-time by utilizing language translation services and image processing. This involves converting speech to text and vice versa in real-time. Customers record videos where they speak predefined text. We capture the image and speech, convert it to text, and compare it with the standardized text. Automating this process makes validation much easier compared to manual methods. On the Azure side, we primarily utilize its data storage and processing capabilities. Additionally, we leverage its AI/ML features, along with its automation capabilities.

Improving transparency in billing is crucial for us. Understanding how billing works only becomes clear once we start using the services. A more accurate billing calculator would help us anticipate costs associated with using specific services.

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Scalability is a key factor, so we opt for Microsoft Azure. Being a Microsoft product, we trust its scalability. Thus far, we haven't encountered any issues related to transaction processing or other scalability concerns. I rate it a seven out of ten since we are not running enterprise workloads. My company has 50 users. The usage of these use cases will increase as our business grows because they are directly related to serving the end consumer. Therefore, we anticipate a significant rise in usage over time.

Improvement is needed in the support process, especially for smaller and medium-sized customers who may not have existing support plans with Microsoft. Accessing support for these customers can be cumbersome, requiring additional payments before assistance is available. It is not clear when you buy the product. You will learn about additional support payments when you start using it. 

The tools' support is in multiple places, which can be complex for customers. It needs to be in one place. 

Neutral

I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. It can be deployed in two to three hours. 

Microsoft Azure's pricing is reasonable. We pay around 5000 dollars per annum. 

We evaluated Google Cloud, IBM Cloud, and AWS. 

We don't face many challenges with compliance and security. We rely on Azure Stack and adhere to the security standards they implement. Compared to AWS, we find it much simpler and easier to achieve interoperability and integration when using Microsoft Azure. You must ensure you have the right competency before using the product. It can become complicated if you don't have the right person to manage it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use email accounts and SharePoint. We want to use AI and OCR services, but we don’t have many use cases.

It is a good solution. I can get all the tools under one roof.

There's a complexity involved in getting the subscriptions provisioned. There are too many complications. Without IT knowledge, we cannot subscribe and work. The product is not user-friendly. All the services must be available in one place so that I can get the services that I need at the right time.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The tool’s stability is good.

The product is scalable. Around 30 people use the solution in our organization. We are trying to get projects from Europe and North America. Once it is done, we'll be scaling up.

The setup is straightforward and easy. Since I know about infrastructure and IT, it took me around one week to set it up. Non-IT people might struggle with the setup.

The return on investment is good. Since everything is in the cloud, we save a lot on infrastructure and server costs. It is very helpful to the client, and it is very useful for us.

I pay for a yearly subscription. Compared to other service providers, the product’s pricing is normal.

I evaluated other options, but I chose Microsoft because it is a little bit easier. We can get it right away.

We are into data management. We deal with data consumption and data validation. So, we must use many virtual and storage solutions to process the data. We use the clients’ solution. I am into IT. I have a bit of knowledge of the infrastructure. If we need to scale up, we might need some training. I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.