Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

Our primary use case for the solution is for applications. We get many applications in the environment, and most applications use Microsoft SQL, Azure SQL, and DBs, and a few use Postgres SQL. So primarily, the focus is to connect with the DB team and have a specific expert in the SQL environment.

We find the uptime and multi-region features available. Additionally, the dashboard is valuable.

The solution can be improved by reducing the constraints available on cloud and improving support response times.

We have beee using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. I rate is as nine out of ten.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. They are knowledgeable but sometimes take a while to give solutions. I rate customer service and support as seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. I rate is as eight out of ten.

I rate the solution as eight out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by reducing the constraints on cloud and improving support response times.

I use the solution for database maintenance. 

The environment is user friendly and there is good flexibility for adding modules or features. 

The solution effectively handles storing and maintaining information in databases. 

The solution requires familiarity with its language so can be tricky. A simplified language would be appealing to users. 

A more user-friendly format for certain modules is desired. 

The application and interface can be a bit heavy to install.

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. It takes a bit of knowledge about the process but then is really easy.  

I have not needed technical support. 

The setup can be a bit of a challenge until you get used to it. Once you have familiarity with it, setup is okay and takes about 30 minutes. 

A colleague assisted me with implementation. 

I recommending using the solution because it is effective and user friendly. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I have used SQL Azure for the backend tier application. If the customer has the flow change application with an application service, they will use the backend. I always suggest using SQL Server and Azure.

The backup solution in Azure is great, the firewall settings in SQL are very easy to use and work very well. Additionally, the turning process is very good and has improved the SQL services and queries.

SQL Azure could improve by adding more features.

I have used SQL Azure within the past 12 months.

I have found SQL Azure to be stable.

The scalability of SQL Azure is very good.

The support of SQL Azure is very good.

The implementation of SQL Azure is simple.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

We provide managed services using SQL Azure to our end-clients. The price of services is fixed, and we manage the resources according to their needs.

The on-premise SQL Server licenses can be used since it is on Azure, so it's a significant savings for the customers.

SQL Azure's performance monitoring features need to be improved. It has a pricing calculator, but it would be great if we could get a rough estimate of the pricing based on fewer parameters, like the data size and the scale of the company. 

I started working with SQL Azure about six months ago.

I haven't had any stability issues with SQL Azure, but I've heard that there are frequent down times.

SQL Azure is perfectly scalable. 

I haven't had any complications setting up SQL Azure.

Microsoft controls the licensing for SQL Server and even for the other vendors. They don't play fair with AWS. If anyone wants to migrate to AWS RDS, Microsoft won't let anyone reuse the on-premise SQL Server licenses on AWS. You would need to repurchase those licenses. So it's cheaper to migrate to Azure instead if you already have an on-prem SQL Server license. The Azure platform itself is also much cheaper than AWS. So when you factor in the SQL Server licenses, it's as much 10 times cheaper than AWS RDS. I'm talking about the SQL Server RDS.

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10. To anyone thinking about adopting this solution, I would recommend that they first decide what applications they need to migrate to Azure. Then you need to estimate the cost. All cloud vendors charge for incoming traffic, especially Azure, and it costs a lot. Around 500GB of data might cost a few thousand dollars.

We use a relational database management system and 90% of the projects I've worked with have used SQL Server. We are partners with SQL Azure. 

The main valuable feature is the auto scaling. In addition, the security features they've implemented on cloud make it a little easier compared to on-prem SQL, they're great. It enables added scalability, and costing can be tweaked and made more reliable, flexible and cost effective.

I think SQL could be improved in terms of ease of use for developers when it comes to performance. For example, enabling suggestions or auto-tune performances, providing results which are higher level recommendations. I know there are tools that performance analyze, but I personally find it to be overly complicated. If they look at performance assistance, add-ons or plugins that might help the developer, focus can be on business logic rather than performance. This is an ongoing issue for me and I'd like to see developers given the flexibility to change those recommendations, it would simplify things. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

SQL's stability is dependent on where it's hosted. 

If you're going into a cluster with multiple width or multiple SQL Servers, deployment becomes a little more tricky. In general, though, the initial setup is relatively easy. 

I recommend this solution and I rate it an eight out of 10. 

The solution is primarily used as a database.

The solution is very easy to use. It's quite user-friendly.

The product is quite stable. The performance is great and it's reliable.

It's very good as an on-premises deployment.

We've found the solution to be scalable and easy to expand.

It would help if the solution was more secure. It's an aspect they could work on for future releases.

We've been dealing with the solution for many years now. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

I've never directly dealt with technical support and therefore cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. Typically, if we have a problem, we just Google it and look for the answer online.

We don't install it. We just use it. It is my understanding that in Azure we don't install anything. We go on Amazon or Microsoft and make a machine. There's no installation.

You do need to pay a license fee in order to use the product. I can't speak to the exact price.

As we are planning to move to the cloud, we are looking at other options, including PostgreSQL or Microsoft SQL Server. It's my understanding that there is not a big difference between Microsoft SQL on Cloud and the Microsoft SQL Server. We still have lots of experience on Microsoft's SQL Server, and likely our company is still prepared to use Microsoft SQL on Azure, not PostgreSQL. On the other hand, a lot of ERPs nowadays on the market using PostgreSQL. So our developers in the company have experience with this product, PostgreSQL.

We use the product and we offer it to customers as well.

We are planning to move to the cloud in the future.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Our company prefers SQL Azure. We enjoy its capabilities. I'd recommend the product.

Until now, we don't yet have full experience with it and just we just apply it in very small scenarios - just for feasibility and to take some feasibility tests. We have yet to start converging our ERP. We're checking if it's good or available and if it will fit in some scenarios.

We don't have to manage it much. It is managed by Microsoft, which makes it easy for us because there is no admin overhead for managing the servers. 

It is also easily scalable. During peak hours, it can scale higher.

We have a very small database running on SQL Azure. We have not been able to load bigger systems on it. It is still not something that is feasible. All our heavy-duty systems are on SAP, and it should have more compatibility with other vendors such as SAP. 

Its price can definitely be lower. It is pretty pricey.

We've been using SQL Azure for about three years.

It is stable.

It is easily scalable. We have five people who are working with this solution.

Their technical support is very good for SQL Azure. Basically, based on my experience, we usually don't have any problem with support for Microsoft products. If we are seeking support for something like Linux or something that is not exactly a Microsoft product, it is a little disappointing.

Its price can definitely be lower. It is pretty pricey.

I would rate SQL Azure a seven out of ten. It works like any other SQL database, and it is pretty good.

Azure has multiple use cases. Organizations can use it for hosting infrastructure, for example. There are cloud services that you can utilize. The main purpose of the cloud is that you don't need to set up your own data center, and then you can just use the cloud platforms provided by Azure or AWS, or any other cloud. They all serve the same purpose.

The solution is a stable product. It has a lot of out-of-the-box services. It provides a lot of services that we would typically have to provision on-premise. 

It's easy to use in terms of their portal, which is very nicely organized.

It's a good platform all in all.

The solution has proven to be quite scalable.

We've found the solution to be stable. 

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

The solution should start covering more regions in Gulf countries and other regions. This is due to the fact that other cloud providers are not locally available. Yet this is what people require here. Their availability in the Middle East and Asia regions needs to improve.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. It's been a while.

We've found the solution to be very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

I'm from a technology provider. We provision these services and provide them to other clients. One of the infrastructure environments which we are provisioning on Azure would be used by probably approximately 8,000 to 10,000 users.

In terms of if we plan to continue usage or not, we are just building it on Azure right now. So it will be live in a year or two, something like this.

Technical support is really good. Microsoft support is pretty knowledgeable and responsive. We are happy with the level of service we receive from them.

The solution is a cloud product. You don't need to install anything. There is no installation process to deal with.  

All products are licensed. The cost depends on someone's usage space. The more you use it, the more you pay. Some are billed in terms of fixed cost. For example, if I provision some work with a machine that I pay for it, even if I don't use it. There are multiple ways you could potentially pay.

We are partners.

We are working on the latest version of the solution.

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

I would recommend the solution. There are not many cloud providers. Azure and AWS are some of the top providers. These are the two which compete with each other, and both of them have good services. That said, I would recommend Azure for sure.