Amazon AWS Reviews

I was using Amazon AWS in the medical market in my previous employment.

Amazon is a really good solution with high performance. They offer more connectors than some of their competitors, such as Microsoft Azure.

Amazon AWS could improve by being more secure and adding more features.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately six years.

Amazon AWS in my experience has been more stable than Microsoft Azure.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 50 customers that are using the solution.

We have moved from Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure. I have found that both solutions perform very well. The main reason we switched was to allow us to manage where the data was to be stored. We wanted a data storage solution in France which most of our customers were requesting. Two years ago, Amazon did not have any solution to provide any storage in France. 

The level of difficulty for the installation of Amazon AWS is similar to Microsoft Azure. They are very difficult.

We have a five-person team of DevOps and architects that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

If I was going to compare the cost of Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, they are approximately the same.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We have migrated all of our on-premise production environments to the Amazon AWS cloud and we use many AWS services.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately six months.

Amazon AWS has proven itself as the market leader in the cloud solution environment and is highly stable.

The solution is scalable.

All of our production environment is hosted on Amazon AWS and we have approximately 12,000 users that use it.

We have enterprise-level support that is very good from the AWS team.

We use other solutions, such as Microsoft Azure for UID and Google Cloud services for DCP.

The initial setup is not difficult and it did not take us more than one day.

We have a managed service provider that helped us with the implementation of the solution.

We have a 60 person team that manages our data operations and infrastructure. The team consists of many levels, such as system engineers, architects, and managers.

We have a monthly subscription for Amazon AWS.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS for website hosting, application hosting, and serverless computing.

Everything is good. 

It is easy to use.

The performance is good.

It's also very economical.

The pricing is reasonable but there is always room to be better. 

If it was offered for free, it would be better.

I have been using Amazon AWS for three years.

We are using the latest version.

We have 20 people in our organization who are using Amazon AWS.

Technical support is okay.

I use Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud as well.

It's a cloud-based solution, there is no installation.

The price is quite reasonable.

With Amazon AWS, you pay as you go.

Definitely, I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We use AWS for product development, testing, and storage management.

AWS has improved our organization by driving efficiency in our product development cycles.

I like that it's easy to use.

They could lower the cost. The setup could also be easier.

I've been using Amazon AWS for about five years.

AWS is fairly stable. There are always some issues, but not much.

AWS scales fine most of the time. It's just expensive.

We've used Azure, we've used Google Cloud, we've used DigitalOcean, and we used SoftLayer. We're primarily using AWS because 75% or 80% of people use AWS, and we want our product to run optimized on AWS.

The initial setup is relative. It's easier than others, but it could always be easier.

It's expensive. It costs you an arm and a leg. It's just about your expertise to do it on-prem versus in the cloud. I think it's more cost-effective to do it on-prem, but not everybody has a lab or the capital equipment budget to staff a lab. So, they are defaulting to using a service.

That's the trade-off. If you're going to scale, most of the time, people are going to build it in-house. To get development started and to get things moving quickly, the cloud providers offer a valuable service. The biggest charge is for storage, moving data back and forth, and the ingress and egress charges.

I would tell potential users that there's a learning curve, but it definitely works.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon AWS a solid seven.

We were not a "born in the cloud" company. Our email server solution was first deployed as on-premise, then as a hosted service on bare metal in a data center and then has been ported to AWS.

The main reason to move from hosted bare metal to AWS was the flexibility in adding storage on demand. However, as we worked with Amazon we realized that it could help improve the scalability and availability of our SaaS offering with the other Amazon services.

Using AWS services has allowed us to have a more atomized architecture, which is allowing us to build scale into each service.

We have deployed a variety of services from AWS. Most commonly EC2, EBS, S3, Lambda, Elastic Search, RDS and NFS Gateway.

The cloud storage based on S3 is one the most valuable services we have deployed since it allows us infinite scale in storage and extremely high durability.

AWS is innovating at a very fast pace. They are very customer focused. They keep up and exceed customer expectations.

There was some new learning in terms of IOPS on the EBS storage. The concept of burstable IOPS was new and we did have a few outages when we ran out of IOPS. After moving to provisioned IOPs for the EBS we have not faced any issue.

Once the IOPs are used up, it takes a long time for the burst balance to be filled up. The only option is to move the data to another disk. This causes downtime. It would be better if we could continue to use at the baseline IOPs.

We did not have scalability issues.

Technical support is responsive, accurate and helpful. Right in line with their philosophy of customer obsession.

We have hosted our SaaS offerings on various data centers in India and the USA prior to moving all the workload on to AWS.

The setup itself was not complex. However, it was an involved exercise moving the email data of all our customers from the data centers to AWS without much downtime.

If you want to move all production loads to AWS, the fastest way forward is lift and shift (which is what we did). However, this may prove to be more expensive than bare metal until the time the solution is updated to use the different AWS services. For example, when we shifted the load to AWS we paid a high cost as the mail stores were hosted on EBS. The storage cost drastically reduced after moving to S3.

We did look at Microsoft Azure, but found that AWS had far more flexibility, options and ease.

There can be a tendency to get excited by all the options available. We advise to start small and focus on the services which solve your core problems.

In fact this is the very strength of the AWS cloud platform; easy and rapid experimentation, start small and scale on demand. The flexibility and malleability of the cloud platform has been an all new experience for us.

We use the solution for cloud service and analytics. 

The tool's most valuable features are AWS Security Hub and AWS GuardDuty.

There are plenty of areas for improvement. For example, the ease of tagging could be improved. The tool could integrate AI tools to identify better and manage costs. Calculating the cost of some services could be more straightforward.

I have been working with the product for six to seven years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate Amazon AWS' scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 200-300 users.                   

The quality of technical support depends on how much you pay. 

Neutral

We used GCP before and switched to Amazon AWS because it was cost-effective. 

I rate Amazon AWS' deployment ease as five out of ten. It can take a few weeks to complete. 

The deployment process was completed in-house.

The solution's ROI is good. 

I rate the tool's pricing a six to seven out of ten. 

I recommend the solution to others because of our smooth experience. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I used Amazon AWS to create a server for our local application and integrated it for clients.

What I liked most about Amazon AWS are its services and infrastructure. They're good. It's a very user-friendly platform. Its servers are also more reliable than others.

An area for improvement would be their technical support packages. They should improve the technical support packages for users on free trial. There is a gap between the user and their technical support team. My suggestion is for them to build on their support for their free trial users.

I used Amazon AWS within the last 12 months, but not right now as I used it for my old project, when I was creating an EC2 server at that time. That was my virtual project, so I created an account and used the AWS services, and also created the server, but that project was closed, so the need was unmet.

Amazon AWS is so stable.

Amazon AWS is scalable, and I'm rating it a nine out of ten for scalability.

Installation for this solution is not complicated. It's easy to install. It's straightforward. If I were to rate my experience with the initial setup of Amazon AWS, with five being the best and one being the worst, I'm giving it a five out of five.

Amazon AWS was deployed in-house. I didn't use any integrator, reseller, or consultant.

I was working with Alibaba Cloud before I worked with Amazon AWS. Alibaba Cloud is comparatively more difficult than Amazon AWS.

I also evaluated Google Cloud and the main differences between Amazon AWS and these other products include how Amazon AWS was easy to use, user-friendly, and its infrastructure.

I've also used the server I built via Amazon AWS for our Android applications, and found the reliability and the stability of that server to really good. I can use it again next time when I'm into development. The server's always good.

I had four customers on Amazon AWS. Those customers were architects working in technology and IT companies.

I also created a server for our taxi application client as one of my projects. I have a local user.

I had three to four people for deployment and maintenance. Some were nontechnical, while some were technical, with an IT background.

Because I was on the free trial version of Amazon AWS, I didn't get to use their technical support.

I used the free trial of Amazon AWS for my clients. I used it during the testing period. I developed applications for clients, then recommended AWS servers to them for the applications.

I highly recommend this platform to others who are considering using it, because its stability is good.

We have different requirements vs other users, so I'm not in a position to recommend features, especially because I have not used all the features of Amazon AWS. I can't say that this feature is good, or that feature is bad. I can't say which features to add to the next release.

I'm rating Amazon AWS a nine out of ten and this is both from an integrator and customer perspective.

My primary use case was as a place to migrate legacy systems.

AWS has reduced our costs and maintenance requirements. It also allows us to control our load in peak times and automatically increases or decreases your capacity as required. 

The features I have found most valuable are S3 buckets and Lambda services.

An area for improvement would be API creation - a lot of tools are provided, but there can be issues with integrating them. There is also a cost underlay, in that at the end of the day, some costs are not in the picture, so AWS needs to improve its costing toolset.

I have been using this solution for two years.

The stability of AWS has improved over time and can now be well managed.

This solution is scalable to any limit.

I previously used Rackspace Openstack but switched because it required more manpower than AWS, and AWS is more cost-effective and tolerant.

The setup was somewhat complex. It was done in three phases over a year.

This solution reduced our overhead cost by 30-40%.

Technical support is expensive to use.

I evaluated Oracle Cloud, but it was more complex to use and provided a smaller toolset than AWS.

This solution is one of the top tools available for legacy migration. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.