Microsoft Azure Reviews

We are using Microsoft Azure to access the Azure cloud database.

It's a flexible solution.

We need more customization and support for doing so.

I would like to see more customization on the DevOps side.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately two years. The organization has been it for more than five years.

We are working with the current version.

It's a stable solution.

We plan to continue using it in the future.

Technical support is very good.

The installation is straightforward.

If you want to install it, it would have to be on a VMware virtual machine.

If you have some experience, it doesn't take much more than thirty minutes to an hour to complete the installation.

I completed the installation myself.

This is a good product and I recommend it to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

This year, we built our own data center, and we use this solution to extend it into the cloud.

We have implemented the ExpressRoute connection, which is an established circuit between the local provider and the Microsoft network edge. This leads you directly to the Microsoft data center.

The digital workload transfers from on-premises here to the Azure cloud, which is a hybrid model. We have two different zones in Azure. One is for the intranet, and the other is for the internet.

The most valuable feature is the performance for our digital workloads.

At times, the support is terrible. It is not bad all of the time, but many times when we have contacted them, there are juniors without refined knowledge. We have had instances where it takes a long time to solve just a single problem.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for the past two years.

The stability depends on the customer. They decide the compute and other things, such as the level of support. If they take premium support then the SLA given by Microsoft is higher than when you choose a virtual machine without premium.

At the moment, we are reviewing and studying how to migrate our full workload to the cloud. We have one datacenter with more than 120 virtual machines and we are learning how to do the migration. Once it is achieved, the hybrid model we have can become a public model.

Our design was complex because we wanted it done in a certain way. There were lots of things to be done. We just experienced problems in the firewall's compatibility with Azure because when you implement a firewall, it's not as straightforward as in the case when you implement it on-premises. This led to some challenges and we had to troubleshoot the deployment of one firewall for a full month.

Even the local providers did not have experience with how to deploy that one firewall, which is why we spent so much time troubleshooting. It turns out that when you deploy a firewall on-premises and you want to migrate to the cloud, there are certain considerations that you have to keep in mind, which makes it more complex.

For our second firewall implementation, it was faster and better.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

This is definitely a product that I recommend, but it has to be done smartly. Not everything can be migrated and you shouldn't try to migrate everything as-is. It has to be done properly and people have to understand how services that are to be migrated need to be done. Also, there are some services that should not be migrated because it is better to keep them on your own cloud. This should all be studied in advance.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We work with a lot of cloud-related products, including Azure.

The most valuable feature is cloud-based storage.

All of the cloud-based features are helpful.

I would like to see better integration with other products.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a few years.

I have not heard any complaints about the stability of Azure. Most likely, we will continue to use it in the future.

From what I understand, it is scalable. We are quite a big company and as such, we have quite a lot of users.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

In my experience, it has always been Microsoft Azure.

Azure is a good product and I can recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily have the solution working as an infrastructure as a service.

The focus on security is excellent. We really appreciate that about the solution.

The maintenance of the solution is very good.

The migration capabilities are great. 

The implementation is easy.

The solution could be a bit more intuitive and easier to use.

The documentation could be a bit better. It could be more clear and accessible. It would be good to know if the person answering the questions was a Microsoft employee or just another user.

The pricing in our region can be a bit high.

I've been using the solution for as long as three years at this point.

The solution is very stable. There's never any downtime. We don't deal with crashes or freezing. There aren't bugs or glitches. It works well.

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

Currently, we have 20 people that use the solution within our organization. We also have three or four admins.

Basically, the solution offers regional support and I'm okay with that. I don't need to worry about not getting the services I need. I've called and got support right away.  I'm quite satisfied with the level of service that is being provided to us.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's straightforward as the product is basically focusing on a pay as you go model.

For our region, Bangladesh, the pricing of the product is too much.

We're a gold partner with Microsoft in Bangladesh.

We're always using the latest version of the solution as Azure constantly updates itself.

I'd recommend the product to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Mostly we've been happy with it, however, we do find the pricing  to be a bit high.

I primarily use Microsoft Azure for application development in our development environment.

The solution is pretty dynamic.

We prefer that we can configure our environment very quickly. 

We can add some notes if we need to. The testing capabilities are great. We can use the load balancing environment, and we can test a lot of different components from an infrastructure point of view. We can also test different scenarios within the application. 

The solution is very simple to use. It has a lot of great practical applications we really appreciate.

The licensing model is not ideal. It is not very useful in predicting actual costs. Sometimes we found that we could not accurately predict how much specific products will cost the company in the future. Just now, for example, we want to start using Log Analytics for Office 365, however, we don't know the final price. It's inconvenient for us as we cannot predict the budget and it puts off making a decision. For Microsoft, it's very disadvantagous.

The solution could use mutual segmentation for servers. It would be ideal if you could constitute something like five or 15 groups among the groups of different computers inside Azure. If you could get something like logical groups of servers outside the mutual servers, it would be an improvement. 

Sometimes we want to start and do a penetration test. If, for example, we're planning new security scanning for our customers. You have to inform Microsoft that you want to start a penetration test. If you have regular scans Microsoft should allow regular scanning, without having to plan and to ask for approval from the Microsoft side every time. When it's meant to be a regular occurrence, it's very inconvenient for us.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. It doesn't cause bottlenecks or any other major issues for us. We find it to be reliable.

While we can dynamically add servers according to the user request, it's not profitable for us. Currently, it is possible to scale the solution. It just costs more to do so.

We are not so satisfied with technical support right now. Sometimes they cannot help us. We had problems with licensing and with the invoicing and so on and so on. Sometimes it's not very easy to explain the problems, the technical or non-technical, and they can't really assist us effectively.

In one instance, we had an issue with anti-spam on the service. We were trying to figure out why certain emails were being marked as spam. It took far too long to get to the bottom of the cause.

It's hard to gauge what the pricing will be, so It's hard to plan with the solution. The licensing needs to be more transparent and obvious.

We're simply Microsoft customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with it, although we would prefer if pricing was more transparent.

We primarily use Azure for Office 365.

My experience with technical support so far is very good.

If the price were reduced then it would be an improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for one year.

For me and many other people, the general view is that Azure is very stable. We definitely plan to continue using it in the future.

This is a scalable solution and we have thousands of users in our organization.

I have had to contact Microsoft support about a problem that I was having with my virtual machine, where it could not find my VM. When I called them, they solved the problem quite fast.

Prior to Azure, we used all of our Microsoft products on-premises.

The initial setup was easy because we didn't do anything.

We hired an IT consultant who is experienced in setting up cloud solutions. We did not do any of the setup ourselves.

The licensing fees depend on the number of users that we have.

Overall, this product is very good and I can recommend it. It would be difficult to improve.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is Infrastructure as a Service. We use it for SaaS applications, as well.

Azure is very flexible and easy to manage.

The interface and usage are nice.

Previously, there was no IP group, but they have since implemented that and it has become better.

For some use cases, Microsoft Azure is okay and working, but it is lacking features and we cannot implement it fully.

Talking from a networking perspective, when you create a file or a rule in Azure and you want to view this IP group, sometimes the way it is displayed on the GUI, you don't see the name of the group. At a minimum, I should be able to see the name of the group. They need to improve the GUI with respect to creating files or files. In summary, on that GUI view for firewall rules creation, the IP groups that are chosen in the firewall are not easily seen.

If I want to track, for example, a soft IP group, and mistakingly I click the wrong thing, then it's a problem. They need to improve it so that you can just view it, read-only, and then edit it later if needed.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure for approximately three years.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten, as they are still developing. 

We have approximately 500 users.

The technical support is very good.

In my own workstream, I've not had cause to work with Microsoft support. However, my teammates from the department have been in contact with them.

The initial setup is straightforward. I can say that because my use case was greenfield, starting out fresh. It was a whole new installation and everything was straightforward.

It took between a month and two to deploy. The installation is not a big deal once you have the necessary license, and then you can begin testing.

This is a product that is fast-growing and they are gaining popularity. We have invested in it, and plan to keep using it for the next five or ten years.

In my opinion, it is an awesome product. Microsoft is everywhere and it predates the cloud. Everything that they have is easy to use.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a single point to check all our application metrics from tool to application. 

The solution is very simple to set up.

Right now, in Azure, with the solution they offer, it's a bit complicated. 

The application response time in particular consumes a lot of memory in terms of the CPU and application response time.

The control administration, every single control, every single application or service, has its independent dashboard. It's a bit complex to set up. It's simple to set up, however, when you want a metric for tracking or reporting, it's a bit difficult.

We've had issues with the login feature and have been looking into other solutions due to that ongoing problem.

The solution needs a more integrated password feature.

I've been using the solution for about two years.

The stability isn't that good as compared to AWS. Azure just seems to have more issues in general. It's not the worst, however, it's definitely not the best. We need to make a plan in case the percentage goes down. 

We sometimes have issues with the Azure login. It's been a problem for the last few years. We've also had a data center fail.

The scalability of the solution is good. I personally haven't faced any constraints. Therefore, if a company needs to expand, I don't believe there to be a problem in it doing so.

I'm not sure of how many users are actually using the solution at our organization.

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage or not.

I haven't been in touch with technical support, and therefore can't really speak to their responsiveness or knowledge about the product.

In terms of documentation, we're making our own in-house. We are creating the policies and procedures for how our monitoring should be and we are creating an inventory of which services we have and which metrics each service must have. It's a work in progress.

We're currently looking into different solutions as we've had some issues with Azure over the last few years.

We may have previously used a different solution, however, I might have been new to the company at the time and don't recall what it was.

It's really very straightforward to set up the solution. It's not complex at all. You just need to set up the features your need.

The solution doesn't require too much maintenance.

We usually use the subscription model Azure has. However, that doesn't include monitoring. We're looking at a new budget for that. It would be apart from the main Azure consumption.

However, I don't know the exact pricing. It's not part of the work I do.

We're Azure partners. We have a business relationship with the company.

I'd advise others that Azure is good for monitoring for a small to mid-size organization. For those, it works well. For very complex scenarios, it will be difficult to manage.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. It's much to complicated for larger organizations.