TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Expedient Enterprise Cloud vs. IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC vs. Microsoft Azure

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Expedient Enterprise Cloud

    N/AN/AExpedient Enterprise Cloud offers a single pane of glass management interface with self-service network provisioning, monitoring and analytics through vRealize Operations, and self-service multi-tenancy so users can manage customer environments with a policy-driven approach that ensures fine-grained control. Deployment options include managed private cloud, hybrid cloud, and public cloud with shared cloud instances and resource pools which the vendor describes as predictable, and reliable.N/A

    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC

    Score6.1 out of 10
    N/AIBM Cloud Virtual Servers are customizable, public or private, cloud-based servers available from IBM. User can launch applications and software across blended, hybrid environments as the servers integrate with all cloud models.

    $0.01

    per hour

    Microsoft Azure

    Score8.5 out of 10
    N/AMicrosoft Azure is a cloud computing platform and infrastructure for building, deploying, and managing applications and services through a global network of Microsoft-managed datacenters.

    $29

    per month

    Pricing
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (dedicated host)
    starting at $0.22
    per hour
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (dedicated host)
    starting at $149.00
    per month
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (multi-tenant)
    starting at $0.038
    per hour
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (multi-tenant)
    starting at $25.21
    per month
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (reserved)
    starting at $0.02
    per hour
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (reserved)
    starting at $13.27
    per month
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers (transient)
    starting at $0.01
    per hour
    Developer
    $29
    per month
    Standard
    $100
    per month
    Professional Direct
    $1000
    per month
    Basic
    Free
    per month
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Free Trial
    NoYesYes
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoYesYes
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoYesNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeOptionalNo setup fee
    Additional DetailsIBM Cloud virtual servers include 250 GB of outbound public bandwidth, unmetered inbound public bandwidth, and unmetered private and management network bandwidth.The free tier lets users have access to a variety of services free for 12 months with limited usage after making an Azure account.
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Considered Multiple Products
    Expedient
    No answer on this topic
    IBM
    Chose IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC
    Microsoft Azure has an extremely poor UX experience, from trying to tell how much a service will cost, to actually physically finding how to set one up through the web UI. The UX of IBM Cloud Virtual Servers is much better, they're easier to setup and they show you what their …
    Incentivized
    Chose IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC
    Overall, IBM is more expensive, but provides a lot of support for these cloud virtual servers as well as makes it very easy to configure these servers to the desired needs. The usability of IBM is sometimes not as good as others, but the availability of these servers is fairly …
    Incentivized
    Chose IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers had a slightly lower cost (possibly due to reseller discount) compared to both Azure Virtual Machines and AWS Cloud9, although not significantly lower. IBM has better support for Linux compared to Azure but that gap is narrowing recently as Microsoft …
    Incentivized
    Chose IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC
    We mostly use IBM Cloud Virtual Servers. IBM provides a better choice of locations, easy to use interface and APIs for management, and better pricing compared to similar providers.
    Incentivized
    Microsoft
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Would buy again
    5 Answers
    92%
    Would buy again
    34 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Delivers good value for the price
    5 Answers
    94%
    Delivers good value for the price
    31 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Happy with the feature set
    5 Answers
    95%
    Happy with the feature set
    35 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    89%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    24 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    94%
    Implementation went as expected
    34 Answers
    Features
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
    Comparison of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) features of Expedient Enterprise Cloud and IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC and Microsoft Azure
    Feature
    Expedient Enterprise Cloud
    -
    Ratings
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPC
    7.2
    88 Ratings
    14% below category average
    Microsoft Azure
    8.4
    27 Ratings
    2% above category average
    Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime00 Ratings9.181 Ratings8.126 Ratings
    Dynamic scaling00 Ratings9.176 Ratings8.725 Ratings
    Elastic load balancing00 Ratings8.664 Ratings8.624 Ratings
    Pre-configured templates00 Ratings3.072 Ratings8.225 Ratings
    Monitoring tools00 Ratings7.384 Ratings8.326 Ratings
    Pre-defined machine images00 Ratings4.777 Ratings8.424 Ratings
    Operating system support00 Ratings6.984 Ratings8.926 Ratings
    Security controls00 Ratings9.178 Ratings8.626 Ratings
    Automation00 Ratings00 Ratings8.224 Ratings
    Best Alternatives
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Small Businesses
    IBM Cloud Object Storage
    Score9 out of 10
    IBM Cloud Object Storage
    Score9 out of 10
    IBM Cloud Object Storage
    Score9 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    IBM Cloud Bare Metal Servers
    Score8.7 out of 10
    IBM Cloud Bare Metal Servers
    Score8.7 out of 10
    IBM Cloud Bare Metal Servers
    Score8.7 out of 10
    Enterprises
    SAP on IBM Cloud
    Score9 out of 10
    SAP on IBM Cloud
    Score9 out of 10
    SAP on IBM Cloud
    Score9 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Likelihood to Recommend
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.2
    (88 ratings)
    8.7
    (96 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.2
    (3 ratings)
    10.0
    (17 ratings)
    Usability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.3
    (36 ratings)
    Availability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.1
    (1 ratings)
    6.8
    (2 ratings)
    Performance
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.3
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Support Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.1
    (5 ratings)
    9.0
    (27 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.0
    (2 ratings)
    Ease of integration
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.1
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Product Scalability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.3
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Expedient Enterprise CloudIBM Cloud Virtual Servers for VPCMicrosoft Azure
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    One scenario that immediately came to my mind was large-scale data processing, IBM Cloud Virtual Servers is well-suited for organizations that require high-performance computing capabilities, particularly when processing large amounts of data. It can also be useful for companies or organizations that wish to migrate their workplace to the cloud and it may suite companies that have strict compliance requirements since the servers have robust security features.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    Azure is particularly well suited for enterprise environments with existing Microsoft investments, those that require robust compliance features, and organizations that need hybrid cloud capabilities that bridge on-premises and cloud infrastructure. In my opinion, Azure is less appropriate for cost-sensitive startups or small businesses without dedicated cloud expertise and scenarios requiring edge computing use cases with limited connectivity. Azure offers comprehensive solutions for most business needs but can feel like there is a higher learning curve than other cloud-based providers, depending on the product and use case.
    Read full review
    Pros
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    • Scalability: IBM Cloud Virtual Servers enable businesses to simply and quickly scale up or down the resources they require in response to changing business demands. This enables firms to respond to traffic spikes, requests for new services, or changes in business size without the need for additional hardware purchases or maintenance.
    • Cost savings: By employing virtual servers in the cloud, enterprises can decrease capital expenditures for hardware and infrastructure while also lowering ongoing operational expenses by removing server maintenance and management costs. This can result in significant cost savings for enterprises, particularly those that need to raise or decrease their computer capacity fast and easily.
    • High availability: IBM Cloud Virtual Servers is built with high availability in mind, giving enterprises the certainty that their applications and data will be available and accessible even if hardware fails or other disruptions occur. This assists enterprises in maintaining business continuity and lowering the chance of downtime, which is crucial for firms that rely on 24/7 access to their systems. Furthermore, IBM's comprehensive network and security features aid in the prevention of data breaches and other security risks, assuring the availability and reliability of their applications and data.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • Microsoft Azure is highly scalable and flexible. You can quickly scale up or down additional resources and computing power.
    • You have no longer upfront investments for hardware. You only pay for the use of your computing power, storage space, or services.
    • The uptime that can be achieved and guaranteed is very important for our company. This includes the rapid maintenance for security updates that are mostly carried out by Microsoft.
    • The wide range of capabilities of services that are possible in Microsoft Azure. You can practically put or create anything in Microsoft Azure.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    • It would also be nice if there were more templates to choose from when creating a server. Right now there are only a few options, and we'd like to see more variety.
    • We'd like to see the ability to create server groups. This would make it easier to manage a large number of servers since we could do all of the updates and management tasks for them at once.
    • There doesn't seem to be a way to automatically install updates on all of the virtual servers. We have to go in and manually update each one, which can be time-consuming. It would be really nice if automatic updates can be done.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • The cost of resources is difficult to determine, technical documentation is frequently out of date, and documentation and mapping capabilities are lacking.
    • The documentation needs to be improved, and some advanced configuration options require research and experimentation.
    • Microsoft's licensing scheme is too complex for the average user, and Azure SQL syntax is too different from traditional SQL.
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    It has a flexible and affordable pricing, easy to configure and manage. It is easy to spawn one or multiple instances and have them up and running in no time
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    Moving to Azure was and still is an organizational strategy and not simply changing vendors. Our product roadmap revolved around Azure as we are in the business of humanitarian relief and Azure and Microsoft play an important part in quickly and efficiently serving all of the world. Migration and investment in Azure should be considered as an overall strategy of an organization and communicated companywide.
    Read full review
    Usability
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft
    As Microsoft Azure is [doing a] really good with PaaS. The need of a market is to have [a] combo of PaaS and IaaS. While AWS is making [an] exceptionally well blend of both of them, Azure needs to work more on DevOps and Automation stuff. Apart from that, I would recommend Azure as a great platform for cloud services as scale.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Reliability and Availability
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    Always available when you need an instance.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    It has proven to be unreliable in our production environment and services become unavailable without proper notification to system administrators
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Performance
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    Most of the instances work on hypervisors with good processors, but not all of them.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    No answers on this topic
    Support Rating
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    It is adequate, but you need to be ready to argue your point - which is fair enough, I suppose, but being given the opposite of the benefit of the doubt every time does not necessarily result in an enjoyable user experience.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    We were running Windows Server and Active Directory, so [Microsoft] Azure was a seamless transition. We ran into a few, if any support issues, however, the availability of Microsoft Azure's support team was more than willing and able to guide us through the process. They even proposed solutions to issues we had not even thought of!
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    We did not use IBM professional services to implement IBM Cloud Virtual Servers.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    As I have mentioned before the issue with my Oracle Mismatch Version issues that have put a delay on moving one of my platforms will justify my 7 rating.
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    IBM Cloud Virtual Servers offer more customization options than Amazon EC2, with the ability to select from a range of operating systems, storage types, and network configurations. IBM also provides a wide range of tools and services to help manage and optimize your virtual servers, including a web-based console, CLI, and API.

    AWS EC2 is a more managed platform, with a focus on providing a simple and easy-to-use interface. Amazon provides a range of predefined instance types, each with different specs and pricing, to make it easy to find the right option for your needs. AWS also offers a number of management and monitoring tools, but these are often more basic than what is available from IBM.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    As I continue to evaluate the "big three" cloud providers for our clients, I make the following distinctions, though this gap continues to close. AWS is more granular, and inherently powerful in the configuration options compared to [Microsoft] Azure. It is a "developer" platform for cloud. However, Azure PowerShell is helping close this gap. Google Cloud is the leading containerization platform, largely thanks to it building kubernetes from the ground up. Azure containerization is getting better at having the same storage/deployment options.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Scalability
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    It worked well for us in the beginning, it works well for us when we have more instances.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    No answers on this topic
    Return on Investment
    Expedient
    No answers on this topic
    IBM
    • Supports businesses who want compute power on demand (instances are ready within minutes).
    • It can give you access to a 32-core CPU at $0.29 for short running or interruptible processes - enabling cost-efficient number crunching.
    • Given me a taste of the powers of remote compute power for compilation and development.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • For about 2 years we didn't have to do anything with our production VMs, the system ran without a hitch, which meant our engineers could focus on features rather than infrastructure.
    • DNS management was very easy in Azure, which made it easy to upgrade our cluster with zero downtime.
    • Azure Web UI was easy to work with and navigate, which meant our senior engineers and DevOps team could work with Azure without formal training.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots