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 solution offers a low footprint. We don't have to come up with a data center ourselves. We basically don't have to own any hardware. We just rent a slice of their platform and we have everything we need."
"The whole solution is well designed and AWS has decent documentation, which is not to be taken for granted. I've also found that AWS is easy to use."
"I like S3, load balancers, and Route 53."
"AWS is known for its scalable cloud hosting and computing services. We use various features depending on our needs, including endpoint services, database instances, and EC2 instances."
"We pretty much like everything and we are excited about the seamless capability the EC2 service is offering."
"I like the technical support."
"The performance of AWS is excellent."
"Friendly console for implementation."
"The most important thing is we don't have to maintain any physical infrastructure. With typical conventional on-premise solutions, we have to maintain many things like the hardware, clusters, etc. With this cloud platform, you don't have to worry about all those things. We have the service always available, and this is the main advantage. I like that we use everything on our standard Active Directory on on-premises on Azure. The key advantage is that you can have the sole indication based on the cloud. This isn't possible with an on-premise Active Directory. This enables work from home and at the office because it's on the cloud."
"The solution has proven to be quite stable so far."
"It is easy to use and flexible."
"Azure is very flexible."
"We didn't have any problems setting it up."
"We use Microsoft Azure for operations, email, and office applications."
"I have found Microsoft Azure to be stable. We have large corporate customers and it is working great."
"There are many different components such as SaaS, PaaS, and API so every month they are releasing a few hundred new features."
"One of the issues I'm facing is that my RDS SQL Server version 5.8 is reaching its end of life, and I need to upgrade it to a customer-wanted version. I want to do this on Graviton instances, but Graviton only starts with version 8.0 and currently doesn't support the 5.8 series. We've raised a Priority Feature Request (PFR) with AWS to have this functionality added for at least three months. This would give us enough time to upgrade our database to the 8.0 version without any issues."
"There are some limitations for certain applications that happen regionally and it is an issue for us."
"This solution would be improved with the inclusion of hybrid Kubernetes management."
"The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions."
"It's sometimes a challenge to manage billing on this platform. It takes a lot of labor to generate billing for our customers from the service on the cloud."
"The invoicing procedure of Amazon AWS needs to be improved. It can be difficult to manage."
"The solution could be more user-friendly."
"There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all."
"There needs to be better data security. There are organizations that do not want their data to be submitted to Microsoft, they should have strong encryption."
"The deployment was quite complex."
"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."
"Technical support needs improvement."
"The alerts management should be improved. Alerts management is very complicated to configure. You have to go through a lot of tests and config action groups to set up those things. It is very complicated, and it can be simplified."
"I would say an improvement could be allowing for more external, third-party tools. However, I think that's their vision, how they develop the product."
"Price could always be better. The features come in quickly, so we're comfortable with the feature set that is available to us."
"The solution’s learning curve could be improved."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 250 reviews while Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 299 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon AWS writes "Reliable with good security but is difficult to set up". 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 Alibaba Cloud. 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.