We compared Microsoft Azure and Pivotal Cloud Foundry based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Microsoft Azure is praised for its scalability, reliability, and extensive range of services, with positive feedback on customer service, pricing, and return on investment. Pivotal Cloud Foundry, on the other hand, is highlighted for its flexibility, automation, and strong customer support, with positive remarks on pricing and return on investment. Areas for improvement include scalability, documentation, support, features, and performance optimization.
Features: Microsoft Azure is praised for its scalability, versatility, reliability, and extensive range of services. Pivotal Cloud Foundry is highly valued for its scalability, flexibility, automation, and extensive documentation and resources.
Pricing and ROI: Microsoft Azure and Pivotal Cloud Foundry both offer reasonable setup costs. User feedback indicates that the installation process for Microsoft Azure is easy and simple, while Pivotal Cloud Foundry has a straightforward and transparent licensing process. Both products are considered to have commendable pricing structures., Microsoft Azure has been praised for its cost savings, increased efficiency, and improved scalability. It offers a diverse range of services and tools. Pivotal Cloud Foundry has provided valuable and efficient operations, scalability, and increased productivity.
Room for Improvement: Microsoft Azure has identified areas that require improvement based on user feedback. On the other hand, Pivotal Cloud Foundry could benefit from enhancements in scalability, documentation, support resources, features, flexibility, and performance optimization as users have suggested.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, reviews for Microsoft Azure suggest varying timeframes for deployment and setup, ranging from one week to three months. In contrast, reviews for Pivotal Cloud Foundry also indicate varying durations, with users mentioning one to two weeks for both deployment and setup., In terms of customer service, Microsoft Azure receives positive feedback for their responsiveness and expertise. Users appreciate the prompt assistance provided by the Azure team in resolving technical issues. On the other hand, Pivotal Cloud Foundry's customer service is praised for being responsive, helpful, and reliable, with knowledgeable and friendly representatives. Users mention the support team actively addresses concerns, providing prompt solutions and guidance. Overall, both products offer satisfactory customer service and support.
The summary above is based on 34 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure and Pivotal Cloud Foundry users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"In terms of managing and configuring infrastructures, Azure is fairly good."
"It is stable and collaborative."
"We use Microsoft Azure for operations, email, and office applications."
"It has multiple features that can be used from the start."
"I get all the features under one roof."
"The solution's technical support was very good."
"It's a great solution. It's so customizable. Every user can create dashboards to suit their needs. We can create and share them with our teammates easily, too."
"We've found the solution to be extremely flexible."
"The most valuable feature of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is the UI, it is easy to use."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very robust, especially for building Java."
"The most valuable features of Pivotal Cloud Foundry are its ease of use and the command line interface has the ability to push instances to the cloud easily."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to scale. The services that connect to the database are also very good."
"PCF is open, so the applications run really smoothly and with little downtime."
"It is a scalable product...We are not facing any particular issues since most of the applications in our company are written in Java and .NET."
"It provides a set of developer-friendly tools that simplify application deployment."
"It supports CI/CD, and is integrated with the CI/CD very well."
"It is impossible to sell a cloud-based model here in Venezuela because we have strong inflation and most of our clients are immigrating to on-premises solutions."
"Technical support needs to be better."
"In a month, there is a plan to increase pricing, which is something we are not looking forward to."
"Any time you use a cloud service, there are increased security risks. If you want more security, you have to have private hosting."
"One key area for improvement is the Azure load balancer. Currently, it only supports virtual machines (VMs) running in the same virtual network (vNet) on the backend. They should definitely support machines or IPs running on-premises (prem) or in other Azure VNets. GCP and AWS already support that. So, Azure Load Balancer should support that as well"
"The interface for configuring the environment is not very intuitive. Certain things are at different places, and it is not easy to navigate. They should have a more transparent licensing model. Currently, Microsoft's licensing is a bit clunky, and it keeps changing depending on the type of subscription you have. Different features are included, and sometimes, it is very hard to figure out the right licensing. So, the commercial aspect of the licensing can be improved, and they can make it easier to understand all the features that are included."
"The solution could improve the stability. However, this could be a configuration issue that we are not been trained."
"Microsoft Azure is not always a user-friendly solution. There are too many people who develop this solution. For the end-users, sometimes it's not really fun to use or simple to use. It could be improved."
"Regarding the setup phase, every step is a hurdle. With Pivotal Cloud Foundry, I won't get any proper resources for that. Even if I Google it, there is no proper solution for Pivotal Cloud Foundry."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry doesn't have certain advanced features."
"The Pivotal Cloud Foundry's initial setup has a learning curve for my team, but it was easy to use."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve the documentation. They are good, but they could improve more. Additionally, it would be beneficial if there were more use case examples."
"Something that can be done better is canary deployment. So, right now, we're using blue-green deployment. The support for canary deployment would be nice."
"In the next release, I would like to see easy integration with external tools."
"It is not straightforward to setup."
"I'd like to see a larger service offering."
Microsoft Azure is ranked 1st in PaaS Clouds with 299 reviews while Pivotal Cloud Foundry is ranked 7th in PaaS Clouds with 15 reviews. Microsoft Azure is rated 8.4, while Pivotal Cloud Foundry is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure writes "Promotes clear, logical structures preventing impractical configurations and offers seamless integration ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pivotal Cloud Foundry writes "Easy to use, simple to sign-in, but lacking graphical interface". Microsoft Azure is most compared with Google Firebase, Amazon AWS, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), Alibaba Cloud and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas Pivotal Cloud Foundry is most compared with Red Hat OpenShift, Amazon AWS, Google Cloud, VMware Tanzu Application Service and Cloud Foundry. See our Microsoft Azure vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.