We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Its most valuable feature is that it's scalable. I can start off with a base of a lot of data and move as much as I want and it's the same as if asked to do a lot of infrastructure changes."
"Ease of management and the ability to oversee the statistics of your SQL."
"I found its storage and security to be the most valuable. It was a good experience. It is also very stable and scalable, and its support is perfect."
"Coding does not require much effort."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"The most valuable feature is PolyBase."
"Customers can benefit from a lot of cost savings if they go for Azure."
"The solution is a fairly mature product. It provides good stability."
"It is very fast in replicating the data from one database to another. We do some extractions from multiple databases to a target database that we use for visualization. It has a good speed."
"The solution has become easier to use over time and it's also reasonably priced."
"Their technical support is the most valuable."
"Google Cloud SQL still needs better connectivity to outside, existing data sources."
"Google's technical support is good, but they tend to never reopen a case and to send us snippets from the publicly available documentation. It's not as helpful as you would expect, not just for Google Cloud SQL but for all of Google Cloud products."
"I am yet to explore a lot of features that are present in this solution. However, it would be good if more documentation is available for this solution. This would help us in preparing for the certification exam and understand it better. Currently, we don't have much documentation. We do the labs for 20 or 25 minutes, but we can't capture and download anything."
"Lacking in technical documentation."
"The pricing is very high."
"I feel that the price is high and it could be reduced."
"Support isn't that great. They need to work on this aspect of their service. It can be challenging to reach them."
"From a security perspective, although their features are decent, they can always be improved upon, updated, and refined to help protect clients better."
"It is a little bit expensive for us. They can improve the price. It would also be very helpful if they can offer some free trial."
"Some issues with scalability."
"There is so much information that it becomes confusing at times. The information can be more friendly. They could also provide additional training, especially at the beginning."
"It is expensive for us. We are looking for something less expensive and thinking of migrating the whole system."
"It is reasonable."
"It is quite expensive. I would definitely recommend not using the pay-as-you-go model because this will just mean all your money will go to Microsoft. So, really make sure to control resource usage as much as possible."
"It's reasonably priced and when you compare it with other products in the cloud environment, it's cheaper."
"I have an annual spend number, and it is in the hundred thousand dollar range. There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees. Even though you have to look at the cost numbers of what you're going to be charged on a monthly basis, what you have to also remember is that your application may need a lot of rewriting and things like that. You get charged not just for the monthly costs but also for the transactions that occur. If your access to the data layer is not so efficient, your costs will go up because you're pulling far more data than you potentially need. These are hidden costs that nobody ever considers. If your application is not written very efficiently, you may actually increase your costs over on-prem versus cloud."
"It is expensive. Snowflake and PostgreSQL are cheaper than this. Google is also cheaper than Azure. Its licensing is on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is based on usage and storage."
"It requires a license. As compared to its competitors, such as Oracle, it is affordable and reasonable."
"There is a license required to use the solution and it cost $30 to do the installation."
Google Cloud SQL is ranked 2nd in Database as a Service with 3 reviews while SQL Azure is ranked 1st in Database as a Service with 31 reviews. Google Cloud SQL is rated 9.4, while SQL Azure is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Google Cloud SQL writes "Scalable and cost effective solution for data analysis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Azure writes "Scalability is the biggest benefit, and it has been available when we needed it". Google Cloud SQL is most compared with Amazon RDS, Google Cloud Spanner, Oracle Database as a Service and MongoDB Atlas, whereas SQL Azure is most compared with Amazon RDS, Oracle Database as a Service, MongoDB Atlas, Google Cloud Spanner and ClearDB. See our Google Cloud SQL vs. SQL Azure report.
See our list of best Database as a Service vendors.
We monitor all Database as a Service 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.