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.
"It streamlines tasks like table creation and data loading into Redshift, making the process more efficient and manageable."
"The features that I have found most valuable are their compute and their Relational Database Service."
"Elasticity has always been AWS's mandate. The flexibility of their platform from a systems perspective lives up to its claims."
"The solution offers easy provisioning and scaling on the fly."
"Macie is great. It is a service that makes recommendations on a data layer for cybersecurity. It is a great service."
"With the pay-as-you-go model, we don't have to predict future IT needs. We can just scale up as we want. That helps with a lot of agility in deploying stuff in our IT infrastructure."
"It is stable. For the cloud version, we require some installation platforms and we don't have a server with us right now. We require it from Amazon AWS. We can just plan and get the AWS server."
"The most valuable feature is scalability, as it is very easy to scale."
"In general, the entire suite of PaaS is valuable. It enables a true breakdown of IT siloes and allows an organization to embrace DevOps."
"It's a flexible solution."
"Being able to set up, change and configure VMs is easy - a lot easier than in AWS."
"The portal makes it easier to work with the solution."
"The solution's technical support was very good."
"One of the best features is the last package security of upgrades to Microsoft Azure. Also, we like Azure's compatibility with other operating systems."
"Azure allows us to bring applications to life quickly."
"The solution is useful for handling large amounts of data."
"Amazon AWS should integrate AI capabilities."
"Some of their well-listed services are not super configurable."
"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."
"Some extensions are better than others."
"They should implement the command shell by default. As it is now, to open the console, you have to download the command application."
"The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions."
"We have had several issues with the products and services but as of now, there are no good alternatives."
"We have a very good approach internally with what we have developed. It involved overcoming some hurdles regarding the single point of truth or single point of configuration, which is sometimes not that easy for AWS. There are dashboards and you have your web service, but bringing all these together and orchestrating is sometimes quite difficult."
"It is constantly updating. There are weekly releases, sometimes daily releases, and there should be fewer that are consolidated into one."
"The cost of the product is too high. It would be ideal if they could lower it a bit for their customers."
"The third-party data-sharing features must be improved."
"It could be more flexible. If you look at all Mircosoft products, they are not up to the mark. For example, Azure Ready doesn't provide the same kind of access a domain administrator has and the kind of flexibility that they have when using Active Directory. Microsoft support could be better. Their service could also be better. For example, specific policies for templates suddenly become unavailable. When I checked, they said that certain things might be withdrawn based on customer feedback. This happened once or twice, and it wasn't available at all for five days, it just went down."
"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"
"There were also a lot of constraints with the serverless parts."
"Onboarding customers is a challenge. Sometimes our customers don't know how to deal with the cloud environment. Maybe the customers are more comfortable with the old-fashioned on-premise environment."
"I believe that some of the services need to be available on the on-premises version and not only based on the cloud."
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.