IBM Cloud Foundry is an IBM version of the open-source platform designed for building, testing, deploying, and scaling applications. Enterprises can run Cloud Foundry in a public isolated environment, while natively integrating with other IBM Cloud services, such as AI, Blockchain, and IoT.
$0.07
Per GBH
Microsoft Azure
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft 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
IBM Cloud Foundry
Microsoft Azure
Editions & Modules
Community Runtimes
$0.07
Per GBH
Developer
$29
per month
Standard
$100
per month
Professional Direct
$1000
per month
Basic
Free
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Cloud Foundry
Microsoft Azure
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
The free tier lets users have access to a variety of services free for 12 months with limited usage after making an Azure account.
IBM Cloud Foundry is our first choice industry-standard platform as a service (PaaS) which has always provided us with quicker, simpler, and more consistent ways for the deployment of the cloud-native applications which in result saved us lots of time and money.
Why I prefer IBM Cloud Foundry platform over AWS Elastic Beanstalk or Heroku Platform is the automation of development process and pushing of projects to cloud with clear step by step instructions - which is available on the documentation. I can say categorically, the terminal …
Cloud Foundry has lot of benefits because platform as a service provided for the developers to implement applications based on the use cases. Different use cases required different buildpacks to run on. It has flexibility to code, push, and run flexibility. Provided ease of use …
We have had to move our deployments to Kubernetes because we needed more reliability. We moved to Google because IBM rates and billing was so backward and expensive. Our client was also very angry at all the outages, lost revenue, production down time and inordinately expensive …
While we are still looking at kubernetes and other services, we will continue to use Cloud Foundry because of the advantages it provides. The support from IBM is good and take a lot of work that our developers and ops had to do away.
It is a cloud-based solution and for all my customers that want to migrate to cloud, this is the solution that we are proposing to customers, as it provides a lot of benefits over private cloud. Scalability and resiliency are not a major challenge and it can be used with other …
CF is what we initially went with to establish a development pipeline and start our cloud journey, now we are expanding this and although we are now pulling in many other tools and functions around CF, it is not being replaced. It stands out as having a key place working ‘with’ …
IBM Cloud Foundry (CF) is simpler and there is a service model that fits most of our internal services. We are going to Loopback for API and Node.js and we have an easy path to go with Bluemix. It's a very easy way to start if you are moving to the cloud and mainly if you are …
We chose to go with more bare metal options since Bluemix didn't really offer these at the time. It was simpler to get up and running with the bare metal service, and we felt that any problems we ran into would be a result of our own incompetence rather than problems with the …
Solution Analyst — Machine Assisted Service Enagagement
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
I have use EC2 and Microsoft's Azure. To me, both Azure and Bluemix were fantastic, but they each had some pros and cons. Azure had more services to offer, but their biggest flaw was in their inability to integrate and work with external platforms, APIs, Programs, etc.. Like …
While IBM works well is when being used by large organizations, these other vendors work well with smaller organizations. We ended up being willing to pay more for Heroku, as they have such an easy-to-use service, and our deployments worked as expected every time.
Used AWS and Azure. AWS has more features and a far superior interface responsivesness. It's actually usable! That being said default configurations and menus in AWS are more cryptic then necessary. Azure seems to be the gold standard for pre-configuration and ease of use. …
Bluemix had a much easier route to get into the artificial intelligence side of things with Watson skills. It also seemed a lot more straightforward to use things like the Weather Channel data, sentiment analysis... etc., than the others. I'd also had a bad experience with AWS …
We have used Red Hat which does not do business in Australia with people like us. They were a promising service (PaaS) while we were able to use the free version but as soon as we needed access to serious mobile-first services we had to pay and their policy meant we had to …
I like when the provider offers cloud deployment via standard orchestration mechanisms (like Docker, Kubernetes, DCOS) This is currently well covered by Azure. Amazon also has good flexibility (supports Kubernetes, DCOS). It's good that Bluemix added support for Docker and …
Obviously this is just based on the virtualisation part of the product, but VM's in Microsoft Azure are well managable and no need to invest in hardware, which gives it an edge in a time where the need for VM's is getting less and less.
I feel that Microsoft Azure typically outperforms Google Cloud Platform in hybrid cloud capabilities, integration aspects, and, primarily, security compliance features. Azure offered superior integration with Microsoft's enterprise software ecosystem, and it's second to none in …
Mostly due to the ecosystem. I don't think there is anything in AWS that we would be missing out when using Microsoft Azure. We use Microsoft products on on-premise servers and also M365 / Office services that are well supported in Microsoft Azure. The pricing between AWS and …
AWS is good for linux virtual machines and mac virtual machines, Microsoft Azure doesn't do mac VMs. However, in my opinion Microsoft Azure is better in every other aspect, easier to use and just as cost effective.
AWS takes the cake here just due to how simple it is to configure IAM roles, users, and policies. Microsoft Azure is nearly neck-and-neck and could probably overtake them in the near future. Splunk for logging isn't that great and Microsoft Azure does a solid job but they could …
Microsoft Azure is a comprehensive platform that offers almost all functionalities and can provide even more. Due to ongoing extensive developments, additional functionalities are continuously being added and improved. Many new functionalities are also being added that are …
AWS is the most stable cloud options but Azure has done well in last few years and provides good options specifically for Microsoft customers and who are more familiar with Microsoft technologies like WINDOWS, MS SQL SERVER, GITHUB, VISUAL STUDIO etc. Google cloud is more …
Azure is an ideal platform for disaster recovery and backup. It is very flexible because of its site regeneration capabilities and other features. All of our data can be backup, regardless of the language or operating system. Azure’s inherent flexibility comes from its status …
Remote accessibility for the mass people from the different places where both free and premium service is available that's why people choose Microsoft Azure. The main reason of switching from that to Microsoft Azure is the cost of operation and operating flexibility. The …
AWS and Azure are distinct classes, regardless of how we view them or which sub-areas. Their capabilities are the most comprehensive and sophisticated. Azure will benefit existing Microsoft customers, but AWS has a slight market share advantage. Microsoft Azure offers many …
Because Microsoft Azure has more integrations and possibilities. Also most of the biggest companies are using it, so it gives the security and the back up to trust and work with confidence.
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" …
We actually utilized multiple cloud stacks, depending upon the customer environment and need. Those that heavily used MS products (Office on-prem or 365), Teams, etc, found it a better fit, with easier integration, for their needs.
I would say that Azure stacks up pretty good and sometimes better in comparison to what Google Cloud Platform has to offer. I don't like GCP for its absurd licensing fees and it's expensive for just Using EC2 Instances. However, DigitalOcean and AWS can offer far better …
The most common alternatives are Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform. AWS is known for its non-existent customer support and abysmal documentation - Azure is clearly better on both fronts. Google Cloud Platform is a solid product, but in my experience Azure Functions …
Integration with other Microsoft products makes Azure stand out quite a bit. However, if you need to use open source software and to integrate with Linux systems then AWS or Google Cloud might be better alternatives. Google did not even come close to Azure in terms of …
Evaluated both AWS and GCP for a similar set of use cases to realize that AWS required additional third-party add ons to be purchased for load balancing vs. Azure's out-of-the-box capabilities offered for free. GCP on the surface was lower cost but the cost of running …
IBM Cloud Foundry is a solid service from the IBM Cloud platform. It is easy to learn, and does not usually require you to make drastic changes to your existing applications. It is especially good for new applications that are cloud native, or micro-services, that can be easily updated and deployed. With its blue/green deployment, you can achieve 0 downtime for your customers.
Actually, migrating to Microsoft Azure is a good solution for almost any situation, especially when all components of your network are ready to become cloud-based. The only drawback I personally encounter frequently is that older software packages cannot always be easily picked up and moved to Microsoft Azure in an optimal manner.
Intuitive user interface makes it easy for anyone to use, regardless of their professional background.
A lot of the services integrate well with external platforms, APIs, and programs, not just IBM services. A lot of the competitors in this space lack this ability.
Maybe it is just our contract in particular, but support and help is always made available.
Azure simply provides end to end life cycle. Starting from the development to automated deployment, you will find [a] bunch of options. Custom hook-points allow [integration] on-premise resources as well.
Excellent documentation around all the services make it really easy for any novice. Overall support by [the] community and Azure Technical team is exceptional.
BOT Services, Computer Vision services, ML frameworks provide excellent results as compare to similar services provided by other giants in the same space.
Azure data services provide excellent support to ingest data from different sources, ETL, and consumption of data for BI purpose.
Sometimes the API Connect GUIs don't cleanly disengage after attaching models or updating schema and it is hard to know what has been written successfully and which (if any) models or tables were missed. I shouldn't have to manually check through a list of 377 models to find the ones in and out of a list on either models, folder or database tables. Printing a summary even in logs which did a "diff" sort of thing between 'task-set' and 'task-completed' (referring to attaching models or updating schema as tasks here as 'tasks').
Provide access to Postgres Database in Sydney datacentre for Australia.
Clearer documentation around setting up a secure (referring to SSL and certificate setup here) server on eg, chubby1.au-sydney.mybluemix.net.
Allow a ramp in pricing onto the Blockchains. We will not be able to afford it until quite a few years into production, even if we launch successfully.
In our experience, Azure Kubernetes Survice was difficult to set up, which is why we used Kubernetes on top of VMs.
Azure REST API is a bit difficult to use, which made it difficult for us to automate our interactions with Azure.
Azure's Web UI does a good job of showing metrics on individual VMs, but it would be great if there was a way to show certain metrics from multiple VMs on one dashboard. For example, hard drive usage on our database VMs.
We have been very satisfied with Windows Azure and now a lot of our business depends on it as more teams are now deploying their applications into Azure. Our next step is to have our Infrastructure team move their resources to Azure. It will take awhile for that to happen but we are positive that it will.
Microsoft Azure's overall usability has been better than expected. Often times vendors promise the world, only to leave you with a run-down town. Not the case with our experience. From an implementation perspective, all went perfect, and from the user-facing experience we have had no technical issues, just some learning curve issues that are more about "why" than "how"
Support is easy with all the knowledge base articles available for free on the web. Plus, if you have a preferred status you can leverage their concierge support to get rapid response. Sometimes they’ll bounce you around a lot to get you to the right person, but they are quite responsive (especially when you are paying for the service). Many of the older Microsoft skills are also transferable from old-school on-prem to Azure-based virtual interfaces.
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.
IBM Cloud Foundry is our first choice industry-standard platform as a service (PaaS) which has always provided us with quicker, simpler, and more consistent ways for the deployment of the cloud-native applications which in result saved us lots of time and money.
I feel that Microsoft Azure typically outperforms Google Cloud Platform in hybrid cloud capabilities, integration aspects, and, primarily, security compliance features. Azure offered superior integration with Microsoft's enterprise software ecosystem, and it's second to none in my opinion. This made it the natural choice for most, especially if heavily invested in Windows, Office 365, or Active Directory deployments. We chose Azure over GCP because we simply needed Windows workload support as a strong driver, more access to global regions, and let's not forget that most tech teams in an organization are Microsoft Certified, which makes skillset transfer from on-prem to cloud a minimal learning curve over shifting to a different provider.
This was the founding solution used to allow us to move in to and test out a cloud pipeline. This is what paved the way for a full production cloud solution to be possible.
Having Cloud Foundry at the base of our development and sandpit environment, segregated away from our standard on premise solution has moved away red tape and ensured an agile way forward.
Times and growth went into it. By balancing on-premises maintenance with continuous cloud improvements, we’ve budgeted and planned endlessly increased capacity.
In today’s world of cyber-crime, clients can put even more faith in what they’ve heard. We built an innovative single-sign-on hub for all users. Also, other business platforms use Azure application gateways, reducing worker switching time and increasing productivity.
Its step can automate to improve the investment. In addition, we can integrate our organization’s credentials into an authorization for other systems.