We compared Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: When comparing Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS, Azure is praised for its manageable setup, support, and documentation. It offers a wide range of features, an intuitive interface, and strong integration with other Microsoft solutions. However, it may be challenging for beginners and lacks user-friendliness in certain aspects. On the other hand, AWS provides quick deployment, extensive features, and strong integration capabilities. Users appreciate its scalability, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. However, some users find AWS pricing to be high and suggest improvements in areas like user interface, security, and billing.
"The availability is good, you can get any service you need immediately."
"Works very quickly and is well managed."
"We have seen an improvement in our infrastructure, as the code makes it very easy to deploy quickly to AWS."
"They provide cutting-edge features compared to other cloud vendors."
"I think the AWS interface is good. It's easy to understand and use."
"It's quite stable and scalable. The price is good as well."
"The installation and initial setup are easy."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature is cloud-based storage."
"I think Azure's level of automation to achieve efficiency or agility is valuable. I also like the change capability cadence, the showback capabilities, and understanding what our costs are."
"Offers many data security features including securing network access."
"Feature-wise, I like its stability. Also, it is easy to access the solution and its options."
"Easy to deploy services"
"Azure is a good networking solution from a WAN perspective."
"There are several products within Azure."
"The tool's most valuable features are SQL servers and Managed Instance databases."
"I'd like to see AWS implement consolidated billing for businesses operating under one group. We want to consolidate the functionalities but keep the billing separate. That is a challenge we've faced, and I feel it's something they can improve on. For example, maybe you have three businesses that are operating under one group, and you want each entity to have a separate bill for the respective workload that they're using."
"The price needs improvement."
"The AWS documentation is written in a way that is not very intuitive. That's an area they can improve."
"It would be ideal if they could provide automatic health reports. That way, I would be able to understand at a glance the state of my services at any given time."
"I have trouble with the AWS command-line interface."
"The feedback we are getting from our customers, especially here in Turkey where the exchange rate fluctuates regularly, is that the solution is quite expensive."
"When I try to enter the multi-cloud, they provide very poor support. Support is a concern with Amazon."
"The pricing is expensive"
"The third-party data-sharing features must be improved."
"The main issue is the lack of notifications for updates. Processes for certain operations, like connecting to Git repositories, have changed without sufficient communication. A system to announce or update users about these changes would be very helpful."
"The solution should emulate what MuleSoft is doing. At the moment MuleSoft has a lot of other features compared to Azure API integration."
"They should optimize their pricing so that we can use more features. I would also like to see more auditing and more security for the Blob storage feature. From a technical point, it has very good features for Microsoft products, but for non-Microsoft products, it may have some limitations. I have mostly worked with Windows-based integration, and now I am trying to use it for open-source systems. It is good but not as easy as Microsoft products."
"The solution could be easier to use. However, when comparing it to AWS it is a bit easier."
"I would like to see more advanced functionality in terms of information security."
"I would like to see all of the cloud providers be more compatible with each other."
"They need to make storage easy and offer more interconnectivity between solutions."
Amazon AWS is ranked 1st in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 26 reviews while Microsoft Azure is ranked 2nd in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 40 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon AWS writes "Offers integrated services and quickly spin up and shut down applications using EC2". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". Amazon AWS is most compared with Linode, OpenShift, SAP Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Pivotal Cloud Foundry, whereas Microsoft Azure is most compared with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Firebase, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, SAP Cloud Platform and OpenShift. See our Amazon AWS vs. Microsoft Azure report.
See our list of best Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) vendors and best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) 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.