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 initial setup is simple and straightforward."
"In general, Amazon's performance is good."
"I am impressed with the solution's EC2 EKS."
"The most valuable features are how stable and easy to use Amazon AWS is."
"I like AWS for its scalability, reliability, and availability, and it's much more mature and user-friendly compared to some other cloud providers. The learning curve and time for deployment are also shorter."
"The most important feature is deploying our production in multi-data regions around the world."
"The best features are flexibility and cost."
"The product is highly scalable."
"Azure is very user friendly. I was able to create some database servers really fast. The user interface is intuitive."
"One of the most valuable features of Azure is that it's a very integrated solution. You have to learn how to use it properly, but it's not that hard, and you can define your whole scrum process and deploy it from one place. It was a really nice surprise to see how easily integrated this tool is."
"Microsoft has a lot of partners in this area, and they have a lot of information available online, so it's easy to get support."
"One feature I like in Microsoft Azure is its ability to host and run applications on virtual machines. It is a basic yet crucial capability for our team."
"Its scalability is valuable. Depending on our requirements, we can add as many virtual machines as we want. We are able to get high availability for services. Services are always available, and they have the maximum uptime. If there is any issue with one of the services, another service is always available. It is pay-as-you-go. You don't have to spend any money upfront. You use the service and pay after one month or a couple of hours of use."
"The tool has proven to be valuable for our organization by enhancing the availability and reliability of services. Our website and several applications hosted on it now benefit from improved availability features and increased reliability."
"The solution is similar to a plug-and-play system, it is easy to use."
"The solution is stable."
"There is a bit of a learning curve. That said, it's likely no different than learning any other cloud."
"The pricing could be adjusted to provide more advantages versus current on-premise solutions for business applications."
"Many of our clients prefer in-house cloud rather than the application data sitting in the infrastructure owned and managed by Amazon."
"Amazon AWS could improve on security."
"There was some new learning in terms of IOPS on the EBS storage. The concept of burstable IOPS was new and we did have a few outages when we ran out of IOPS."
"In terms of technical features, I don't see anything missing. The only two points in favor of other providers are the price and local support. The main problem that we see here in Brazil is the price. It is much more expensive than any other cloud provider. Their local support can also be better. We get more support from some of the other providers here in Brazil as compared to AWS."
"They can launch the Oracle service in Azure, and we expect that this should be possible in Amazon AWS as well."
"They do not yet have a complete solution for APM monitoring. But this, along with real user monitoring, is something that they are actively working on improving."
"We had issues with the Mobile Service ORM and the Azure SQL Database (cloud version of SQL Server). At times, the queries that are created automatically from the ORM mapping are not very well optimized for this database and that can lead to performance and stability issues. On occasion, the connection manager from the ORM does not handle the database connections very well."
"One area for enhancement could be in the realm of big data and unstructured data storage."
"Microsoft's technical support could be improved."
"I'd like to see better integration with S/4HANA integrated and other services, like monitoring, for example."
"The solution's initial setup was a bit complex in the beginning."
"We have reported some bugs we encountered, and it would be good if those bugs were resolved more quickly."
"Lacks flexibility in terms of storage or resource allocation."
"Integration with other cloud environments can be tricky at times."
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.