What Azure is
Microsoft's cloud: the same categories as AWS — machines, databases, storage, identity — with the difference being how deeply it connects to the Microsoft software an organisation already runs.
When your identity, your documents and your existing systems are Microsoft, Azure removes an entire category of integration work.
The strongest argument for Azure is rarely the infrastructure. It's what it's already connected to.
Entra ID gives staff access with existing accounts and policies, instead of another password to manage.
SQL Server, Office and internal line-of-business systems are neighbours rather than remote endpoints.
European regions and the compliance documentation procurement teams ask for, which shortens approvals.
Existing Microsoft agreements often change the economics enough to decide the question.
If identity, e-mail and documents are already Microsoft, putting the application next to them removes a category of integration work.
Staff sign in with the account they already have, and access is removed centrally when they leave. This is usually the strongest reason to be here.
Moving a Windows-only .NET Framework application onto Linux containers, which normally cuts hosting cost substantially.
Bicep or Terraform in your repository, so environments are rebuildable and reviewable rather than remembered.
Some contracts specify where data may live and which certifications the platform must hold. Azure often satisfies those, and we build to the requirement rather than around it.
Written for someone deciding, not for someone who already knows. Skip it if you do.
Microsoft's cloud: the same categories as AWS — machines, databases, storage, identity — with the difference being how deeply it connects to the Microsoft software an organisation already runs.
Rarely the technology; usually the organisation. If your identity is already Entra ID, your staff live in Microsoft 365 and your licensing agreement is with Microsoft, Azure removes friction the alternatives can't. Identity alone is often the whole argument.
Enterprise identity and governance. Conditional access, managed identities and the policy tooling around them are more coherent than the equivalents elsewhere, which matters once you have hundreds of staff rather than ten.
The portal is harder to navigate and the naming is inconsistent, which costs real time. If your organisation has no Microsoft relationship, this isn't the obvious default and we would not pretend otherwise.
Modern .NET runs on Linux. For many workloads this alone justifies the migration.
If application access isn't tied to central identity, offboarding is a checklist somebody forgets. Entra ID removes the checklist.
Azure accumulates orphaned resources quietly. An inventory usually finds a meaningful share of the bill doing nothing.
If your organisation runs on Microsoft identity and Office, Azure usually wins on integration and procurement. Otherwise the decision is closer and comes down to what your team knows.
Yes. We run Linux containers, Node and PostgreSQL on Azure routinely. It's a general-purpose cloud.
Yes, alongside the existing system with a switch at the end and an agreed way back, rather than a weekend with no return path.
It's a genuine reason to lean that way, mainly for identity, but not automatic. If the application has no Microsoft dependencies, either cloud is fine and cost should decide.
Yes, and how hard it's depends entirely on how portable the original build was. Containers and a standard database move in weeks; proprietary services don't.
A few lines are enough to start. You get a reply within two working days.