What do you like best about Microsoft Exchange?
The first thing that stands out in Microsoft Exchange is how intentionally it is built around explicit messaging primitives: recipients, transport, mailbox databases, and client access endpoints. When configuring an environment, that clear separation makes it easier to predict where a change will land and what ripple effects to expect, especially under strict change control.
Administration feels at its best when treated as an automation problem. Exchange Management Shell remains the most dependable interface for anything that needs consistency across many objects, and it encourages a mindset where configuration becomes code. In my day to day work, that shows up in repeatable patterns for provisioning shared mailboxes, applying permissions at scale, standardizing address policies, and enforcing naming and attribute conventions. The practical benefit is not “saving clicks”, it is reducing drift, avoiding one-off exceptions, and making it easier to rebuild the same posture in another environment.
Identity integration with Active Directory is another strong point when the directory is healthy and well governed. Exchange leans on AD for core recipient attributes and access control, so RBAC and administrative scope boundaries can align with existing enterprise directory policies. I appreciate being able to treat messaging as an extension of directory hygiene rather than a separate identity system with its own rules. In organizations with mature AD operations, this design choice can simplify governance discussions because the same stewardship model can apply.
Mail flow engineering is one of the areas where Exchange feels most “enterprise” to me. The connector model gives a concrete and testable way to shape inbound and outbound routing, and mail flow rules provide a powerful policy layer for content handling and conditional enforcement. I also value the troubleshooting surface here: message tracking, queue visibility, and transport logs provide enough detail to reconstruct the journey of a message and understand why it was routed or modified.
High availability capabilities are a highlight when properly designed. Exchange supports Database Availability Groups, which replicate mailbox databases across multiple servers and enable database-level failover rather than relying solely on shared storage resilience. From an operational standpoint, this enables maintenance routines that can be executed with less disruption, as long as activation preferences, lag considerations, and network prerequisites are handled with care.
Client connectivity can be shaped to match a variety of security and networking requirements, which is useful in real enterprises where “one size fits all” rarely holds. Namespace and certificate strategy still requires deliberate design, but I like that Exchange exposes clear configuration points for internal and external URLs and for controlling which protocols are actually offered. When the environment is configured cleanly, client behavior becomes predictable and support cases become easier to triage.
Hybrid capability is another area where Exchange can fit complex realities. Being able to run a coexistence period with mixed mailbox locations is valuable when migrations cannot be completed in a single wave due to legal constraints, application dependencies, or organizational sequencing. In that sense, Exchange does not force a binary decision between fully on premises and fully in the cloud, it can act as a bridge if the architecture is planned properly.
On the roadmap side, I also like that Microsoft has continued to ship and position Exchange Server as an actively maintained product line, including the release messaging around Exchange Server Subscription Edition. Even if licensing and lifecycle planning can be contentious, having an explicit forward path matters for teams that must keep certain workloads on premises or in tightly controlled environments.
Compliance and governance features are another strength, provided they are implemented intentionally rather than left as defaults. Retention behaviors, mailbox auditing, and discovery-oriented workflows can be structured in a way that supports legal and security requirements without turning operations into a constant firefight. When these controls are defined early, they also reduce the likelihood that teams fall back to unmanaged exports and scattered archives.
Operational telemetry is usable, though it benefits from experienced interpretation. Health concepts, service states, and the Windows ecosystem of logs offer enough signal to build monitoring that detects degradation before it becomes a widespread user incident. When paired with certificate expiration tracking, namespace probes, and queue thresholds, it is possible to build a practical early warning system that matches how Exchange actually fails in production. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you dislike about Microsoft Exchange?
The management experience also feels split between interfaces. The web admin tools are fine for routine actions, but many advanced tasks are realistically PowerShell-only, and some configuration states are easiest to confirm by querying rather than browsing. I do not mind using PowerShell, but I want the UI to expose the effective configuration more clearly, including defaults and inheritance, so that audits do not require a separate script just to answer basic questions.
Complex upgrades and large changes still carry more uncertainty than many teams expect. Even with good documentation, the real-world risk comes from environmental specifics such as old certificates, inconsistent DNS, stale records, or third-party appliances that behave differently after a change. I would like Microsoft to invest further in preflight validation and safer rollback options that reduce the stress of major maintenance events.
Third-party integration can be inconsistent, particularly across security gateways, backup tooling, and identity adjacent products. Exchange is common enough that most vendors “support it”, but support does not always mean the defaults are safe or that the integration is observable. I have dealt with cases where a perimeter device rewrites headers, alters TLS characteristics, or affects Autodiscover behavior in a way that looks like an Exchange regression. More explicit network-level diagnostics exposed by Exchange would help isolate whether the platform or an upstream device is responsible.
Resource expectations can surprise organizations that treat Exchange like a generic app. Storage latency, memory pressure, and background maintenance behavior can turn into perceived slowness rather than clear errors, which makes the user experience hard to explain and the remediation harder to prioritize. In my view, Exchange would benefit from more prescriptive performance guidance that translates counters and health indicators into clear operational actions.
Legacy compatibility is both a feature and a trap. It is convenient to keep older protocols or older authentication patterns available during a transition, but every extra exposed surface area becomes something that must be defended, monitored, and eventually retired. I regularly end up spending project time on “de-legacy” work that is necessary but not exciting, such as disabling unused protocols, tightening connector permissions, and validating that no business-critical workflow silently depends on a weak configuration. I would prefer a more secure-by-default posture that makes legacy enablement a conscious, explicit exception rather than something that lingers. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
![ACI Learning [ITPro]](https://images.g2crowd.com/uploads/product/hd_favicon/5e2deb2873672a2527bf86ec151ce1a9/aci-learning-itpro.svg "ACI Learning [ITPro]")
![ACI Learning [ITPro]](/assets/transparent-ad5be28fbcd25b7b08d2cebe1d957125437fb5407d75ee717965ad22c8808791.gif "ACI Learning [ITPro]")
