Microsoft Azure vs Nanobox

• Azure Functions is the easiest serverless service to work with in my experience. Easy to ship Node.js functions without bundling dependencies.
• Proactive and responsive support. We've worked with most other cloud providers - Amazon, Google, Oracle. Amazon Web Services' customer support is a black hole and their documentation is worthless. Google and Oracle are better, but Azure's support is responsive and their docs are pretty good.
• Azure's Web UI is pretty easy to work with

Read full review

• Relatively easy setup. One file named "boxfile.xml" controls all relevant services including there communication ports, routes and build steps.
• Scaling is easy - you can put everything on one machine, split certain services to dedicated machines and scale services to multiple machines. best of all this can be done at any time with almost zero down time.
• I have not used this yet, but for a few hundred dollars a month you can get dedicated operational services to help you make your setup even easier and ensure your system is operational.

Read full review

• Could be easier to setup redundancy
• Feels as if there are too many options, bells, and whistles you could add.
• Microsoft Azure functions does not have a "Configure Services" method. Programming Azure functions has a slightly different programming model than does a "normal" API application. I would prefer that the startup process be identical.

Read full review

• The company has not been very communicative as of lately. Not much news, no apparent work on missing features.
• Some components are incomplete as far as some critical features. For example, I use RethinkDB as my database and it's missing critical features like backup and clustering, so It is unusable and they should have made that clear from the get go.
• The pricing on the support plan is vague. I do have the feeling it is actually well worth the money, but it's hard to form a decisions based without more predictable specific.
• Seems to me like the platform's future is unclear.

Read full review

• It has taken a few years of planning and growth (which continue), but we've been able to successfully budget and plan for ever increased capacity by starting first with some Virtual Machines and factoring in on-prem maintenance vs cloud constant improvements. VM (server, compute, networking) costs even out quickly over time and will show savings very soon.
• Because of Azure Application Gateways (which cost very little to set up and maintain), we were able to build a state of the art single-sign-on hub for all of our users and other enterprise platforms (mostly non-Microsoft and non Azure systems), reducing the amount of time to switch among these for workers and increasing overall productivity.
• With Azure Active Directory, we do not need to maintain separate identity systems and can more easily integrate our organizations credentials into authorization for access to other systems.

Read full review

• The platform is saving me a lot of time I would have been wasting on operations instead of development.
• The platform is saving me a lot of money as I can easily switch between cloud providers to find the best price.
• I am worried though for the price I might have to pay in case of an unexpected system issue.
• Hopefully I will be able to pay the support plan before that.

Read full review