We compared Microsoft Azure and Google App Engine based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Microsoft Azure is praised for its scalability, reliability, customer service, pricing, and return on investment. On the other hand, Google App Engine is appreciated for its scalability, easy deployment process, infrastructure, customer service, pricing, and return on investment. The main difference lies in Azure's extensive range of services and flexibility, while App Engine could benefit from improvements in scalability and performance optimization.
Features: Microsoft Azure is highly praised for its scalability, versatility, reliability, and extensive range of services. In contrast, Google App Engine stands out for its easy deployment process, strong infrastructure, automatic scaling, and efficient datastore. It also seamlessly integrates with other Google services.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Microsoft Azure is praised for its ease and simplicity, according to user feedback. Users find the licensing terms flexible and varied. On the other hand, Google App Engine has minimal and straightforward setup cost, making implementation easy. Its pricing is considered cost-effective and well-suited for users' needs., Microsoft Azure has been praised for its cost savings, improved efficiency, and scalability. It offers a diverse range of services and tools. On the other hand, Google App Engine is known for its positive ROI, increased efficiency, and seamless integration with other Google products. Users also reported time and resource savings.
Room for Improvement: Microsoft Azure users have provided feedback on areas that require improvement, while Google App Engine users have suggested enhancements in scalability, performance, resource allocation, latency issues, flexibility in configuration, and deployment options.
Deployment and customer support: Microsoft Azure users have provided varying feedback on the time required for deployment, setup, and implementation phases, with some mentioning a three-month deployment period and an additional week for setup. Other users mention a one-week timeframe for both deployment and setup. Careful evaluation of the context is crucial for accurately assessing implementation duration. Similarly, users of Google App Engine also reported different timeframes for deployment, setup, and implementation. Some mentioned three months for deployment and an extra week for setup, while others reported one week for both. Considering the specific context is essential to evaluate the duration of each phase accurately., In terms of customer service, Microsoft Azure receives positive feedback for its responsiveness and expertise. Users appreciate the prompt and helpful assistance in resolving technical issues, as well as the availability of comprehensive documentation. On the other hand, Google App Engine also has highly regarded customer service, with users appreciating the responsiveness, effectiveness, and reliability of the support team. They find the promptness in addressing queries and the knowledgeable guidance offered by customer service representatives to be satisfactory.
The summary above is based on 27 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure and Google App Engine users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"I've found that all of the features are valuable, especially the shared drive and the ability for multiple people to use their documents at the same time."
"The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"We didn't have any problems setting it up."
"The focus on security is excellent. We really appreciate that about the solution."
"Microsoft Azure has been easy to use in my experience."
"Storage has made remote access to files much more painless and easy."
"Azure is very user friendly. I was able to create some database servers really fast. The user interface is intuitive."
"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."
"We use Microsoft Azure for operations, email, and office applications."
"One of the features I have found to be valuable is the scale set feature."
"I am limited to sending a photo to five people. I want to be able to send a photo to many people, not just five."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
"I think there's still a lot that can be done with Google Meet and the video conferencing part of it. It could be more dynamic in terms of what can be done with it."
"The solution could improve by being more user-friendly."
"Pricing is one area where Azure has room for improvement. There should be some due consideration. Azure has solved some issues with pricing from the development team's standpoint, but it is still quite costly. They should also offer a trial period for the individual platform solutions. I think that would be pretty handy for the developers."
"The dashboard of Microsoft Azure could be better."
"It would be beneficial if Microsoft could enhance the free version to allow for more exploration and development. That's my only suggestion regarding Azure."
"I think it would be good to keep making progress on giving users the ability to do action calls on Data Factory. Right now, it's mostly local. Perhaps Microsoft could add the ability to put some calls in the workflow."
"I would like it if Microsoft communicated better about upcoming changes before they roll them out. Sometimes when Microsoft implements changes, they don't notify the users promptly enough. I would like to know about new features, especially Office 365."
"We use Microsoft Server 2019 and 2016. And I didn't like the 2019 client, so we had to downgrade back to 2016. The main issue there was its monitoring system. Our client needed an alternative, and if they were using more Windows products, they also needed to make that downgrade."
"The market place can be raised, and the CMT can be more sophisticated to create more opportunities for the end users."
Google App Engine is ranked 13th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews while Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 298 reviews. Google App Engine is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Google App Engine writes "Simplifies app development process for businesses". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". Google App Engine is most compared with Amazon AWS, Heroku, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Compute Engine and OpenShift, whereas Microsoft Azure is most compared with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry and Linode. See our Google App Engine vs. Microsoft Azure report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.