Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure

• Multiple security access levels ensure that one client cannot access another clients data.
• Multiple geographic locations allows us to meet certain audit requirements.
• Simple setup from within many cloud backup clients.

Read full review

• Very well documented system.
• 95% of features can be managed via API, a CLI, a web and a PowerShell.
• For the money (even MSRP), featureset is very impressive and competitive.
• MS is iterating on features at an incredible pace.

Read full review

• Security configuration can be a little confusing and sometimes requires making completely new accounts.

Read full review

• Typically, our systems need to do more than simply host a web site or run a worker. Giving us the ability to integrate management of these types of services from Visual Studio in the role configuration would greatly simplify this process.
• The earlier versions of Azure were of course lacking support in some key areas, and persistent storage in blobs was counter intuitive and difficult to manage. That said, with what seems to be an endless army of developers, support staff, technical writers, etc. Microsoft rarely misses opportunities to improve their services and Azure is no exception. Using the provided technical documentation and demo applications, working with persistent storage has because quite painless.

Read full review

• The storage costs are extremely low compared to storage provided by cloud backup vendors, most of which are just reselling Amazon S3.
• This has allowed us to be more competitive in the corporate backup market.

Read full review

• The biggest advantage Azure has had for us is in the procurement pipeline, we no longer have to worry about ordering dedicated servers for most of our projects as it's just a matter of having someone who holds the right keys.

Read full review