Amazon AWS Reviews

We use this solution for everything. It's our infrastructure. You can have long-term or short-term storage. You can have elastic servers, analytical AI, machine learning services, and API services.

It's a flexible solution.

The interface is relatively complex. It's not complex when you compare it to Azure, but with some other competitors, it is a little complex.

The interface could be simplified. It's an area that needs improvement, as well as the price.

I have been using this solution for five years.

We are using the latest version. It's always kept up-to-date by Amazon.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. Everyone in our organization is using this solution. We have 100 users.

We are not sure if we are going to continue using this product. We may move to Azure or GCP. We haven't made that decision.

You have support but not very much. It's all do-it-yourself and you figure it out for the most part.

You have outside consulting firms that provide the support. 

We use Azure, just for backups.

There is nothing to install, it's cloud. It's easy.

The prices are a bit high. But they are the first ones on the market to really do this and they have a monopoly on it.

Depending on what you get, you will have to pay for a license. For example, if you get SQL Server, which is a Microsoft product, you need to pay for a license. If you get other products, you may have to get a license. They will provide that or they will sell it to you.

In some instances, it may be, that you bring your own licenses.

Azure has better services for some aspects, and Google GCP has obviously got some competing products. I think each provider has its benefits, advantages, and disadvantages.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution as real-time streaming to our data-lake. We also have microservices publishing to APIs. It's a customer 360 application. 

We also used the product for migration from on-prem Hadoop to AWS EMR.

We used to spend about $57,000 on-perm with another solution. Then we lifted and shifted to AWS. It came down in cost to about $33,000 while maintaining the same inner software with Apache Kafka. However, we then got into ECS Fargate, and that brought costs down further to about $22,000. When we removed ECS, we moved into a serverless Lambda for 45 million, and our billing is now $8000 per month. It's an amazing amount of savings.

The solution's API Gateway is very good.

The storage on offer is excellent. 

Recently they improved a lot in the analytics that they have on the backend. 

It's great that the product is completely serverless. 

The implementation for end-to-end, for Lambda serverless implementation, is excellent. I do run about 16 million messages per day with their Lambdas, for my API microservices.

The initial setup is not difficult.

We get a lot of exception errors, and we're working with AWS to figure out how to fix that. when we lift and shift . We get a lot of alerts. 

As our serverless Lambda is maintained by AWS, in a certain aspect,  we need to gain some more visibility into what is going on when problem happens with AWS serverless 

Their metadata management in AWS needs improvement. They need a centralized metadata management tool, where it can be integrated with  outside metadata tools  with the API. We really need a central metadata framework.

I've been using the solution for four years. It's been a while at this point.

The stability of the solution is very good. there are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. That said, initially, we did have a few problems, however, everything has ironed out. It's great now.

Scalability-wise, the product is very good. The Lambdas and the serverless architecture are very good on AWS. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease.

We have a lot of APIs, and we'll run them on my customer 360. There are six departments that use the product. We have about 1,000 users currently.

We've dealt with technical support in the past and have not been satisfied for the most part. Azure's technical support is much better. AWS often can't help us resolve our issues. But they brought some good consultants basing on our request and helped us . The account Manager always there when he took over this account .  

 i recommend IAAS AWS , for IPAAS ( integration as platform service) and Hybrid cloud Azure

We've also planed for  Azure. We've found Azure to be much more helpful when dealing with issues than AWS has been. I prefer them over AWS in support , application development  and integration as platform. But AWS has great products like S3 , API gateway , transit gateways , route 53 . AWS has  more OS options than AZURE and database offerings. their EMR is good with spark and python but not well supported for Scala and HBase. AWS serverless offerings are very good with out any major problems which includes ECS with fargate and EKS . But we got a good support from account manager

The initial setup is not complex. When we lifted and shifted faced lot of problems on EMR. Moved to ECS, as well as serverless Lambda, it's was that difficult then. That said, we had to think about how we run our Lambdas, and what problems we are facing or might face.

We're also facing a few problems due to the fact that we use encryption, HCM. When we initially started loading this data, batch data, a lot of Lambdas came, and our limit in HCM is only about 5,000 a minute, however, it quickly jumped up to 20,000 which made it so that we could not load, and errors came up. We had to turn to AWS to get assistance. We just ask them if we can have space over a few days for 20,000 and then they scale it back to 3,000. they helped us 

In terms of the implementation strategy, ours took about eight months. The lift and shift happened within 3 months. Then, we took another four months as we had a lot of problems with our scale-up programming due to multiple issues - for example, libraries, EMR, AWS doesn't have. We faced some problems when we had to change our code according to AWS, or we have to bring in those libraries on our own. So that's where it took time, maybe four months.

For ECS, it took about 30 days to move everything we needed to. 

We don't have a lot of staff to maintain the product. We have about eight people who are capable of doing so. For example, we have someone on infrastructure, who is an architect and we have an enterprise architecture team. I have four developers, two for API and two for Lambda, and one is a systems admin. 

Initial setup environment helped by AWS free . We were able to handle every aspect of the implementation in-house. We didn't need any consultants or integrators. We used our systems manager so that all of our deployments - including environments and keys - can be stored on our SSM. A lot was automated as well.

excellent in covid -19 situation . 

We saw a lot of cost savings when we switched over to AWS. It can really save a company a lot of money.

Azure and AWS 

I'm a user and  implementer.

The solution is on the cloud; it's always the latest version. It's constantly being updated, and we're always using the latest version.

We use both public and hybrid clouds as deployment models.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We mainly use AWS for migrating onto the cloud or for analytic services and machine learning. 

I like many features, like the recently released useful analytics features. There are many from the data analytics or database side.

The price could be better. Support for data analytics could be better. I don't see much support for data analytics. They have a lot of support in Azure, but I don't see a lot of innovation on the data analytics side in AWS.

I have been dealing with Amazon AWS for the last two years.

AWS is a stable and flexible solution.

AWS is a scalable product.

Technical support is customer-friendly and knowledgeable.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. They have very good documentation, and if you can follow the script, you can do it. I was trying to do it with the Datacom script, and I was able to make services like VPC and EC2 in the database cloud seamlessly.

The prices are somewhat on the higher side. It would help if they can bring it down, especially for the sporting segment and for on-demand instances.

I would recommend Amazon AWS to potential customers.

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

We host the service for customer products. Those services are utilized by different product lines, which can be used on AWS.

One of the features offered is scalability on demand.

It's user-friendly.

There are some areas that are not great. For example, with some Microsoft technologies such as .NET, you will have a difficult time deploying it on AWS. It works very well with open-source solutions like Java, but not with .NET technologies.

I would like to see more alerts added to the system. Preemptive alerts would be very good. It is something that happens and you have to do a lot of configuration at that time, which can be complex.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It's stable and a pretty robust solution.

It's a scalable solution that features scalability on demand, which is working perfectly fine.

We change the core on demand. We can increase the capacity on demand.

We have 10,000 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We have dedicated support. Once we have deployed it, support comes as part of the service because it is incorporated with the solution.

We get all of the support that we need.

The initial setup was definitely complex, but not because of AWS. It is complex because we need to upgrade to be compatible with AWS, which is related to the product and not AWS. The setup of AWS is straightforward.

We deployed it in a cluster way. Initially, it took a week to set everything up.

The first time it took longer, then became straightforward. It only takes a couple of hours now.

Licensing can be purchased on a yearly basis, which is an auto-renewal. We also have an on-demand on-pay purchase.

If, for example, we have provisions for other things and we have a three-peak season then we add more core, more hardware for the on-premises machines. During those periods it is on-demand but the rest of the time it is licensed with a yearly subscription.

The pricing is reasonable.

I would recommend this solution but there are some areas that need improvement. It doesn't integrate well with some technologies and preemptive alerts would be very helpful.

I am happy with this solution, and I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS together with MuleSoft's CloudHub, because CloudHub is an extension of Amazon VPC. As part of that, when we set up the infrastructure and everything, we will be interacting with Amazon products. And with big customers, we have data in the private cloud and within that private cloud we have the MuleSoft CloudHub which is connected through the organization's private cloud to a specific geographical AWS public cloud. Regarding security, we also have a number of layers there, too.

As an example, we have seen approximately 300 ETFs developed for different areas, e.g. for United Arab Emirates and other customers. And the internal customers are also using AWS. All in all, there are approximately 10,000+ users who are using it, and things are going pretty well.

The reason I like AWS is that they have a large market share and a large presence. When it comes to our use case, a big positive is that MuleSoft and AWS are working together very well. So instead of competing against each other, they're meshing together.

There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all.

One thing is that sometimes it becomes a problem when troubleshooting our tools because when you have some things local and some things remote on a foreign server, it can get complicated. We find that sometimes it's a challenge to gather the necessary information from logs and such because you need the proper agreement to capture those details. 

In the future, I would like to see Amazon move more into local clouds, by capturing more of the small market. Nowadays, spending a lot of money is not on the list of priorities for many companies, especially considering what's going on in the world. We want to leverage whatever amount is available and still get all the benefits of new AWS cloud offerings.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a couple of years now. 

The infrastructure of AWS is very stable.

AWS is very scalable. 

I've never worked with technical support personally because we have a lot of network engineers to handle that. 

When it comes to pricing, not all applications require that much performance. That's the reason why other cloud markets are also catching up, because the two predominantly high-performance platforms, AWS and GCP, are almost the same.

Looking at the primary market for AWS, I see that there's a lot of customers who have only mid-level performance requirements, because you will have all these normal applications such as online auction websites, gaming applications, voice applications, and so on. These are not, for example, large monitoring applications, financial independents, or brick and mortar companies. So AWS caters to about 40% of the market when it comes to general applications.

As it happens, in many cases, you simply don't need the high-performance offerings from AWS, nor the innovative products from Google Cloud Platform, which can come with large price tags.

Overall, AWS is pretty good and I can definitely recommend it because it's a proven product. When you're solving big problems, you want — first and foremost — proven infrastructure, technology, tools, and mechanisms. Then slowly, you'll be able to remove dependencies by moving to others as needed. So for project initiation and everything, you get to rely on something which is rock solid and proven in the industry with a long track record.

I know AWS can be an expensive option, but it doesn't have to be out of budget if you choose the appropriate level of product for your performance requirements. They can provide high-performance computing resources, while at the same time catering to the mid-level market with lower performance offerings. 

Previously, in the initial days of AWS, back in 2005/2006, there were some concerns about security and such things, but nowadays there is not much to worry about because a lot of those concerns have been taken care of. Recently, there has been another shift in attitude towards them, because not everybody is a big fan of public cloud because of what is happening in the world with respect to data privacy and everything.

Regardless, the three big names of Microsoft, Google, and AWS are really grabbing the market, and IBM is also catching up well. Because of the data privacy concerns, however, I do see some customization in European countries who are interested in interacting with the cloud market at a more local level.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for POCs, different experiments, or IoT devices.

The flexibility of the solution is excellent.

The ease of use is great. You can bring something up very easily and tear it back down just as easily. 

Our first system is about to be released. It's our flagship and it's going really well.

The solution scales up extremely well.

They're spinning up and going faster. Anything and everything would you ask for in terms of your feedback they take back and build it and the next thing you know the feature you wanted is available.

The product has a lot of new functionality.

There's always room for improvement, however, they're building out new products. 

The problem with AWS is you have to keep up with the technology. If you don't stay up to date with the technology and its latest changes then you won't know what to use in your infrastructure. For example, as soon as you finish building one thing, then they've already updated to something new. They're always continually updating, rebranding, and rebuilding. 

They tend to oversell before a product is ready.

The solution needs to have more security features continuously added to it.

It would be ideal if they could continue to build a more hybrid collaborative solution - something that allows users to be on-prem, on cloud, or wherever they need to be to build. I'm looking for more AWS to Microsoft (or AWS to Linux) authentication solutions.

There are a lot of management requirements. You need to manage every aspect surrounding the solution, and it can sometimes be a lot.

I've been using the solution for ten years. We've used it over the last 12 months. We have a lot of experience with the solution.

Every system has bugs and glitches, however, for the most part, I haven't had any problems with it. In maybe out of 10 years, I might've seen servers fail three times in my life. Their durability is almost perfect. The stability is excellent. You can rely on their product.

The solution scales up very well. You can easily expand to however big you like. There doesn't seem to be much of a limit. It's very easy to do so as well.

If you scale something up and if you already have your scripts, your JSON, your LAN, and scripts running, and it sees the joint unit, then it brings it right back down. For example, it only uses what you need. If you build in it according to AWS's best practices, then you have a lean mean machine. If you're using their best practices, you'll be fine. 

We are using the solution more for POC purposes, and therefore there are only three people on it currently.

I would them a nine out of ten as a rating. However, the problem we have is not with AWS. Rather, we don't allow them to touch our infrastructure. We've got a lot of security issues and protocols. It's not an AWS issue, it's the way the corporation is built, and that's due to the fact that what we do is highly sensitive.

We would need to ask for specific professional services if we did run into issues.

I have experience with Microsoft as well. 

The difference is that Microsoft is everybody's house and everybody's corporation. AWS is more for if you want to do something new. If you want to just test something new and if you don't have the money, if you just want to learn, you can do something for almost nothing. You can just spin up something and just spin it back down and pay zero. They're moving into what they call this Self-Service Arena now, so then that way you can start building infrastructure. For example, your developers or your designers can actually go in and have a space that they can play in. That's one of the problems that people have with development. People need spaces, where they can go in and build stuff to try.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward.

The pricing can be very difficult to determine due to the fact that there is so much selection.

We are an AWS customer.

We're using the latest version of the solution. It's always updated, as it's on the cloud and is constantly the latest.

I'd recommend the solution to others. We've been pretty happy with it in general.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten due to the fact that they're very flexible. They can be overzealous and challenging at times, however, they really believe religiously in their product, and you can go find many people that know how to use AWS. 

It has been useful for running virtual services for some of our internal applications. Some of the developers are using it for doing some kind of development work on robotics process automation or RPA.

It is quite easy to provision new virtual services for our use. The procedures are quite straightforward and simple as compared to other competitors, such as Microsoft or Huawei. This is what we are happy about with Amazon AWS.

It is pretty mature in terms of the availability of most of the infrastructure components. If you want to deploy a server on your platform, everything is already there in terms of the operating system, network components, securities, and data encryption. It is also quite scalable and stable.

Our use case is limited to virtual services and RPA development. We are not using it quite heavily, and there are not many issues or problems so far. However, it would be great if it could be integrated with more AI features and proactive monitoring. It could also have more automatic capacity expansion features. For example, when renting out some space, memory, or computing power, the service can have the capacity to expand by itself without being manually handled by us.

I have been using this solution for two to three years.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. It is easy to expand and unsubscribe. In terms of the number of users, we have ten administrators from the IT side.

We have interacted with them. They are quite responsive to our inquiries.

The initial setup was easy.

It was pretty much done by our in-house developers.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. I believe we are satisfied with the current pricing. Otherwise, we would have switched to another vendor.

I would recommend this solution. Amazon AWS cloud is pretty mature in terms of availability for most of the infrastructure components. It is a one-stop shop that gives everybody simple steps to get things done, which is great.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

I'm a service provider providing services to customers. I'm using AWS as sort of a generalization. There are 62 products offered by Amazon on cloud-related services, which include EC2, includes Silverlight, it includes a whole bunch of different solutions, F3, EBS, so we've got solutions that we have to support for all of it.

Glacier is one of the solution's most valuable features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The user interface (UI) needs improvement. Right now, it's not the best.

The product's authentication method could be better.

The pricing model could have a more competitive edge.

It would be great, in a future release, if the solution offers unified hybrid management, or hybrid cloud management.

I've been using the solution for four years at my current company. Personally, I have about eight years of experience with the product. I've worked with it for quite a long time at this point.

Generally, the solution is pretty stable. That said, when they have an event or an outage, it's pretty severe.

The solution is quite scalable. A company that needs to expand the solution should be able to do so pretty easily.

We have applications that run on AWS. However, in terms of administrators or interface people, that interface with AWS directly, we have probably about 80 users on the product.

I personally have never conversed with technical support. That said, I haven't heard of any complaints about their level of service. From that, I would assume that our organization is largely satisfied with their support offering.

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty simple and straightforward.

If you know the patterns for how to set up and host, it's a quick deployment. We normally automate all of our deployments anyway, so the deployment process itself is quick and easy.

The product is an a la carte service. It offers a set of microservices that are associated with it. Therefore, the solution pricing varies quite a bit.

The pricing could be more competitive. If a company is questioning whether it's cheaper than owning a server yourself and running a server yourself, the general answer to the total cost of ownership is yes, it is cheaper. However, if you have to move data around a lot, it will not be cheaper.

We've evaluated other options as we use a variety of other solutions as well. We've evaluated a lot of other companies.

We're an Amazon partner as well as customers of theirs.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I would recommend that most small to medium businesses that they use a consultative agency or a managed service provider to help them with the product.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.