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 most valuable feature is scalability, as it is very easy to scale."
"Macie is great. It is a service that makes recommendations on a data layer for cybersecurity. It is a great service."
"Works very quickly and is well managed."
"The performance of AWS is excellent."
"We pretty much like everything and we are excited about the seamless capability the EC2 service is offering."
"The initial setup is easy. The deployment is fast."
"The features that I have found most valuable are their compute and their Relational Database Service."
"The storage is most valuable. The gateway and documentation are also quite good."
"Easy to deploy services"
"The best feature in Microsoft Azure is that I don't have to change computers. I don't have to upgrade or if something breaks or a hard drive crashes. The lack of a physical aspect is the major feature for me."
"I like the ExpressRoute because that makes it easy to configure connectivity to Azure-hosted services."
"The stability is very good. The performance is excellent."
"Offers many data security features including securing network access."
"The ability to quickly create and manage resources is critical to getting things done, Azure just makes getting things done a lot simpler."
"It's very easy to build a new service and get it into production."
"The technical support has been good."
"I think the price can be improved."
"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."
"The initial setup was very complex."
"They could lower the cost. The setup could also be easier."
"It works very well with open-source solutions like Java, but not with .NET technologies."
"I want to use AWS as a full solution for my website - for domain and website hosting, and everything in between - however, I was not able to find everything together."
"Amazon still has room for improvement in terms of being more mature on the monitoring side and in terms of the native capabilities. Amazon should get their services portfolio stronger on OEM-based workloads such as Microsoft and Oracle. There are a lot of areas that still do not have offerings, so there is room to grow. I would be happy if they bring more maturity to the monitoring capabilities and SaaS offerings. They are strong on Infrastructure as a Service, but they are not mature on SaaS."
"The user interface (UI) needs improvement. Right now, it's not the best."
"The solution's initial setup was a bit complex in the beginning."
"Improvements are needed in Azure to enhance integration tools and support for effectively migrating and managing third-party dependencies."
"One key area for improvement is the Azure load balancer. Currently, it only supports virtual machines (VMs) running in the same virtual network (vNet) on the backend. They should definitely support machines or IPs running on-premises (prem) or in other Azure VNets. GCP and AWS already support that. So, Azure Load Balancer should support that as well"
"The permissions and controls in the product are not easy to use."
"Security could be better. Once there was an attack, and we couldn't get to the cloud to see the reports for about five hours."
"The process by which our customers can switch from one subscription to another should be simplified."
"From a security perspective, there is always something that can be improved as we serve our customers."
"There should be be better support for microservices and containers."
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 Google Firebase, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), 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.