Azure App Service vs. Platform.sh

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure App Service
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
The Microsoft Azure App Service is a PaaS that enables users to build, deploy, and scale web apps and APIs, a fully managed service with built-in infrastructure maintenance, security patching, and scaling. Includes Azure Web Apps, Azure Mobile Apps, Azure API Apps, allowing developers to use popular frameworks including .NET, .NET Core, Java, Node.js, Python, PHP, and Ruby.
$9.49
per month
Platform.sh
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
Platform.sh helps companies of all sizes, from SaaS entrepreneurs looking to build, run, and scale their websites and web applications.N/A
Pricing
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Editions & Modules
Shared Environment for dev/test
$9.49
per month
Basic Dedicated environment for dev/test
$54.75
per month
Standard Run production workloads
$73
per month
Premium Enhanced performance and scale
$146
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsFree and Shared (preview) plans are ideal for testing applications in a managed Azure environment. Basic, Standard and Premium plans are for production workloads and run on dedicated Virtual Machine instances. Each instance can support multiple applications and domains.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Top Pros

No answers on this topic

Top Cons

No answers on this topic

Features
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Azure App Service
8.4
4 Ratings
3% above category average
Platform.sh
9.3
1 Ratings
13% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces9.04 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability9.64 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Platform management overhead6.44 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability6.53 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control9.44 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration9.54 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Development environment creation9.44 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Development environment replication10.03 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification8.04 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Issue recovery7.14 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes6.94 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Small Businesses
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Score 9.0 out of 10
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Score 9.0 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM Cloud Private
IBM Cloud Private
Score 9.5 out of 10
IBM Cloud Private
IBM Cloud Private
Score 9.5 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM Cloud Private
IBM Cloud Private
Score 9.5 out of 10
IBM Cloud Private
IBM Cloud Private
Score 9.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Likelihood to Recommend
6.4
(8 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure App ServicePlatform.sh
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
You may easily deploy your apps to Azure App Service if they were written in Visual Studio IDE (typically.NET applications). With a few clicks of the mouse, you may already deploy your application to a remote server using the Visual Studio IDE. As a result of the portal's bulk and complexity, I propose Heroku for less-experienced developers.
Read full review
Platform.sh
In our organisation we are the only team that uses Platform.sh to host any site. This was a cost effective way for us as we were using Acquia Cloud earlier for these websites. We mostly use Platform.sh for those sites which are always in development as it is simpler and faster to handle these operations in Platform.sh. Then we do a lift and shift to Acquia as we move more towards the go live and post production maintenance side.
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • It has options to deploy using CI/CD.
  • It has great integration with Azure Devops
  • It has all the common runtimes, so we don't need to install softwares.
Read full review
Platform.sh
  • As this is a PaaS it mitigates the complexities of a Cloud infrastructure like Acquia
  • We are easily able to integrate our sites with different technologies like Python and Rest
  • Helps us in providing Continuous Development cloud deployment hosting solution
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • the learning curve can be tough (just like other azure services)
  • the UX/UI could be more intuitive (just like other azure services as well)
  • monitoring can be hard to understand
  • Microsoft's learning resources are hard to understand
Read full review
Platform.sh
  • Platform.sh is not for beginners in my opinion. It has a good amount of learning curve in my opinion.
  • As this is a PaaS, teams habituated with cloud infrastructure may miss the server side support from their cloud teams. I believe you will have to work on server bugs more on your own.
  • During normal maintenance periods, integrations may fail if you are working on your sites in that time, in my experience.
Read full review
Support Rating
Microsoft
We had an issue where we deployed too large of a resource and didn't notice until the bill came through. They were very understanding and saw we weren't utilizing the resources so they issued a generous refund in about 4 hours. Very fast, friendly, and understanding support reps from my experience.
Read full review
Platform.sh
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
Azure has many data center, their services are more reliable. Azure has way more features than both Linode and DigitalOcean. If someone wants a complete reliable service, he/she must go to Azure instead of Linode and DigitalOcean because even though azure charges more, it is worth the money you pay there.
Read full review
Platform.sh
In our team we use Platform.sh mostly while sites are in developmental phase. Then we do a lift and shift to either Acquia or AWS depending on the type of sites we have. Platform.sh is really cost effective and more fluid in terms of Continuous Development hence the usage. After said development is done, we generally lift and shift to Acquia for more content heavy sites and to AWS for more transaction oriented sites.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • Reduced the deployment time of ASP .NET applications in the company.
  • Gave us an alternative to quickly deploy our applications without granting access to the version control system to a third platform.
Read full review
Platform.sh
  • Continuous development for sites in build has been fluid
  • Platform.sh is really cost effective when comparing to AWS or Acquia Cloud
  • On the other side, lack of server side support demands a big learning curve from its users in my opinion.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Platform.sh Screenshots

Screenshot of