We compared SQL Azure and Google Cloud SQL based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
User feedback on SQL Azure highlights its fair pricing structure, seamless integration with Microsoft products, and satisfactory customer service. On the other hand, Google Cloud SQL users appreciate its scalability, ease of use, and efficient customer support. Areas for improvement in SQL Azure include enhancing query performance and reducing costs, while Google Cloud SQL users seek better performance optimization and transparent pricing models. Overall, both products offer reliable database management solutions with their unique strengths and weaknesses.
Features: SQL Azure stands out for its seamless integration with other Microsoft products, scalability, and flexibility in deployment options. On the other hand, Google Cloud SQL is praised for its ease of use, high performance, excellent backup and restoration capabilities, and automated maintenance tools.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for SQL Azure is deemed reasonable by users, ensuring a smooth and hassle-free experience. On the other hand, Google Cloud SQL's setup cost is well-managed, ensuring a smooth and hassle-free process. There is no mention of specific differences in the setup cost between the two products., In terms of ROI, SQL Azure received positive and satisfactory feedback from users, while Google Cloud SQL users shared their experiences and outcomes.
Room for Improvement: SQL Azure has room for improvement in the areas of query performance, storage capacity, availability, customization options, and cost reduction. Users also want improved security features and integration with other Azure services. Google Cloud SQL users have suggested enhancements in performance optimization, scalability, availability, monitoring, and management tools. They also recommended more transparent pricing models and improved documentation and support resources.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, the duration required for deployment, setup, and implementation for SQL Azure is inconsistent. Some users report separate timeframes for deployment and setup, while others view them as the same period. On the other hand, Google Cloud SQL users have varying experiences, with some separating deployment and setup durations, and others considering them as one., SQL Azure has been praised for its highly satisfactory customer service, with users commending the responsiveness, efficiency, and knowledge of the support team. Google Cloud SQL also receives positive feedback for its prompt assistance and efficient issue resolution, with users appreciating the friendly nature of the customer service representatives.
The summary above is based on 45 interviews we conducted recently with SQL Azure and Google Cloud SQL users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"I found its storage and security to be the most valuable. It was a good experience. It is also very stable and scalable, and its support is perfect."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use, simple, and user-friendly."
"My suggestion to anyone thinking about this solution is to jump into it head-first!"
"The solution is easy to use. I am impressed with the tool's features and functionality."
"This is a stable solution and offers good performance."
"What I like the most about Google Cloud SQL is that it handles the management, which allows us to concentrate on our applications."
"The setup was straightforward. Just a couple of clicks, and we were done."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment takes about one hour."
"We like the ease of integrating it with our on-premises environment. We use a hybrid model. We have a SQL Server on-premises, and we have an integration with the cloud version. We do CPU or disk intensive processes on-premises. For accessibility, we offload onto the cloud. When you do a lot of IO and things like that in the cloud, Microsoft charges for the CPU activity."
"They have good documentation. It's concentrated information."
"We primarily and generally use it only for DB purposes. When it comes to the Azure part, we can easily provision, scale up, and scale down the generator machine. This kind of flexibility is the USP of SQL Azure. Its interface and ease of use are also valuable. It is very easy to use and integrate with multiple databases. If I need to pull in or import some data from my on-premises database, the ease with which you can connect and pull the data, not only from SQL Server but also from other flavors of MySQL or even Oracle, is very good."
"The stability is good."
"The most valuable feature is PolyBase."
"The solution is a fairly mature product. It provides good stability."
"Very easy to use on any platform and works well."
"The most vulnerable problem with Google SQL is that while you can customize your access control list, it provides you with a public IP address."
"The purging of the data could be better."
"The customer support should be improved."
"In the case of Google, they need to work on a more easy interface for users."
"For data analysis, the AI area of the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"I would like to see better availability of the product in different regions. It should also improve the security with encryption."
"Google's technical support is good, but they tend to never reopen a case and to send us snippets from the publicly available documentation. It's not as helpful as you would expect, not just for Google Cloud SQL but for all of Google Cloud products."
"The most challenging part is dealing with legacy data from your old systems and migrating it into the new setup, but once you've completed the data migration, it becomes quite convenient to use."
"It should have better profiling capabilities."
"They should also simplify the security in Azure. We are using the cloud as a platform, so there is no physical infrastructure. We're using Azure components like databases and servers to create an application. Integrating those components in terms of permissions and security is challenging for us. Maybe there is a lack of knowledge on our side, but it's not straightforward."
"The solution requires familiarity with its language so can be tricky."
"If we need to deploy data management or services with SQL Azure we need InterSecure."
"The default 1433 port for communication should be customizable because most hacks or attacks are attempted when creating any application or database on the default port."
"It's not a feature, but the solution only offers a certain amount of memory and that's limiting. The scalability should be extended to more than two terabytes."
"Their availability in the Middle East and Asia regions needs to improve."
"It is a little bit expensive for us. They can improve the price. It would also be very helpful if they can offer some free trial."
Google Cloud SQL is ranked 5th in Database as a Service with 16 reviews while SQL Azure is ranked 2nd in Database as a Service with 90 reviews. Google Cloud SQL is rated 8.4, while SQL Azure is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Google Cloud SQL writes "An easy-to-use solution with good features and functionality ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Azure writes "The SQL connector effectively syncs data to databases". Google Cloud SQL is most compared with Amazon RDS, MongoDB Atlas, Oracle Database as a Service, Google Cloud Spanner and Oracle Exadata Cloud at Customer, whereas SQL Azure is most compared with Amazon RDS, MongoDB Atlas, Oracle Database as a Service, Google Cloud Spanner and IBM Db2 on Cloud. See our Google Cloud SQL vs. SQL Azure report.
See our list of best Database as a Service vendors.
We monitor all Database as a Service reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
