Amazon AWS Reviews

We do have quite a lot of AWS deployments and clients in certain countries.

We use it for spinning up environments, using infrastructure as code. We use it for disaster recovery and high availability for creating BMs for testing. Mainly on the service side, we use it for setting up environments and spinning up environments.

The monitoring is the most valuable aspect of the product.

Technical support is available if you need it.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is okay. It's similar to what you would get with Azure. 

The interface needs a bit of work. It's not intuitive.

The solution's initial setup can be complex. 

I've been using AWS for about 15 years. It's been a very long time. 

The stability is fine. I haven't had issues with crashing or bugs or glitches. 

The solution's scalability is pretty good. These solutions are pretty well known for not being able to scale well. They behave very differently at scale. I wouldn't say it's any better or worse than Azure is; it's probably on par.

Internally, we have about 500 people using the solution right now. 

I have never used technical support myself, although it's my understanding that our team does from time to time. We do all the first line ourselves. Anything that escalates to the third line, we have contracts in place to help us get assistance.

I found the initial setup to be pretty complex. It's just getting more and more complex, with the infrastructure as CodePipelines and that sort of thing. On a scale of one to five, one being the worst and five being the best in terms of complexity, I'd say it's a three.

I have no idea what the operational side does in terms of maintenance. It's not an aspect that falls under my responsibilities. 

I don't handle the licensing side of things and therefore cannot comment on the price of the solution.

We also looked at Azure DevOps.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We use various deployments, including on-premises, public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment is dependent on the customer, the solution, and the service level agreements that we have. We use all of those models. We make our choice based on the requirement.

I'd advise potential new users to actually do a shootout between the different products based on your use case and choose the right one.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, however, the UI needs improvement first.

We have applications that are running on the PaaS platforms.

In the healthcare environment, we use Amazon AWS to run healthcare and hospitalization applications.

The end-user is largely unaware of how the backend works, so some of the services are provided by Amazon. So, where we are, some of the applications have been running since the beginning, and we have been using them. And some of the services are required by the packages we are running, so they use Amazon PaaS as a service.

In general, Amazon's performance is good.

When I try to enter the multi-cloud, they provide very poor support. Support is a concern with Amazon.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a few years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution, it is far more stable than some others.

Amazon AWS is scalable, depending on the platforms and services that are used.

In our company, we have 50,000 employees who use this solution.

We intend to increase our users based on how the new releases go, and if the economics work out better than Google and Microsoft, we will definitely look to Amazon because Amazon can be extremely competitive at times.

It should be faster. Unlike Google's and Microsoft's support, Amazon's support should be faster.

We have used other PaaS clouds previously.

The hospitals were available on Amazon. We have certain hospitals that were part of the group when it first started, but there are a lot of hospitals that are in the process of being acquired. Once the setup is acquired, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for them to bring it through one enterprise architecture. Now, it is not necessary to have services from only one cloud service provider; instead, we can have services from multiple providers, and we are working to integrate the multi-cloud.

Essentially, you must design and optimize the architecture. It is not the most straightforward process to install. You must first design your architecture and then optimize it in relation to the services.

Earlier I used to work there, and we had a real skill shortage because we needed people who could understand and work in the cloud. When we developed centers of excellence and core competencies, people were required to work across multiple platforms, which is a challenge that we are currently working on. As a result, the real challenge now is for a team to have a multi-cloud. Now, if we can develop this talent organically, that will be fantastic. We'll spread out the support team we require. Another initiative that is being worked on is automation, automating scripts, and new technologies, which are assisting us greatly with serverless and cloud computing.

It can get quite pricey at times. Because of the patterns we're attempting to use, it becomes very expensive. Where we can save money by using Google components or Microsoft components, we can go much cheaper.

You must pay a licensing fee, which is based on the usage.

Essentially, it is determined by how we use the services. There are sometimes are a soft service, sometimes we pay yearly, and sometimes we pay as we use it.

Yes, I would recommend this solution. If we compare the three, I would rank Google first, Microsoft second, Amazon third, and the rest would follow.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We are mostly using it for DevOps. 

We are using its latest version. They do auto-updates and update it at their own will.

It is easy to spin up resources.

There is no control of downtime.

I have probably been using this solution for eight months.

Over the past couple of days, we've had some outages. It seems they had some network issues, but overall, it has been pretty dependable and stable.

It is easy to scale. We probably have about 50 users who use this solution.

They're decent. Sometimes, they take a while to get back to you. It depends on the severity.

We were using another solution. We switched to it because of its ease of use, ease of deployment, and cost.

Its setup is of medium complexity. It depends on what you're setting up. Some of the things are easy, and some of the things are difficult. For example, setting up infrastructure as code with Terraform is difficult.

It is comparable if you add in the price structure to an on-prem solution.

On the DevOps side, make sure you know what you're doing for security before you implement it. Make sure it is secure.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

AWS is deployed into a public cloud. We have five lines and everything is autotomized. We are using several AWS solutions, including Containers, Pierre, Stargate, and Lambda. We have several projects in production, but I can't disclose more details because it's confidential. 

AWS is easier to implement than other solutions, and it's more reliable. 

It would be helpful for us if we could easily integrate Oracle RDS with AWS. That would work well with the solutions we have in place.

AWS is stable.

We can quickly add resources with AWS when necessary. Our company currently has 200 users working with AWS.

Amazon support could be better.

Deploying AWS is easy. The amount of time it takes depends on the application. I couldn't give a precise estimate of the number of minutes. We have four engineers to manage and maintain the solution.

We pay about $20,000 per month, and the license is all-inclusive. 

We are compared AWS with Azure and IBM Cloud, but in the end, we decided to work with AWS.

I rate Amazon AWS 10 out of 10. For me, it's perfect. AWS is effortless to configure and has high availability. 

Our primary use case of AWS, for most projects, is for hosting on AWS and developing locally, as well as testing some AWS environments. We are mostly using this platform from a developer point of view. AWS is our cloud platform by choice. 

One of the most valuable things about it, besides the stability, is that you can forget about infrastructure because you're just doing it on AWS. I remember the times before AWS and other cloud solutions existed, and it was a huge pain to get real hardware, put it inside, configure everything, report everything, and do a scale. It was very, very difficult compared to how it is now. Not even just AWS, but what all these cloud providers are doing, I would say, is a huge advancement in technology. 

AWS could be improved with more integration, but I can see that they're developing these features and working very hard on their platform. 

I have been working with AWS for a few years. 

Amazon AWS is very stable. 

One of the major points for AWS is the scalability that comes with it. You can monitor it really well, and you can even adjust down, or sometimes up. What this technology allows is very nice. 

AWS is predominantly used in most of the projects that we have. In my organization, there are thousands of users who are using AWS. 

I have never personally contacted tech support. 

There isn't really an installation for AWS, but you will need certain certificates to download the interface. I generated some certificates, put them on my machine, and then used them to connect to AWS services. 

It depends on the project, but there is usually only one guy needed for deployment. For bigger, more complex platforms, you may need two or three guys to deploy AWS. 

I implemented AWS myself. 

You pay for a license, and that's how you get your own account. These are usually not individual licenses, but rather for a group of people. I think these licenses come at some volume, but I don't know many details about the licensing. 

I rate AWS a five out of ten, but it's mainly because I don't feel very experienced in AWS. I have gone to the console many times and seen many features that I have never used. I'm sure I can learn quickly, though, because there is a lot of information shared on the internet about how to use it—there are a lot of resources that you can use to learn, and there are a lot of features available on AWS. They're working very hard on their platform, and I can only see their usage growing in the future. 

I would certainly recommend AWS to others. 

We use mainly use the product for the infrastructure, the service components, and the storage. 

The maturity that the solution offers is its most valuable aspect. It was one of the first solutions to market and has a long track record. It's very mature in terms of product delivery. 

It is very stable.

The scalability is great.

In terms of features, it's very feature-rich and it's got a good ecosystem from third-party vendors as well in terms of those that partner up with them for offering their services on Amazon. 

The security is good. Due to the fact that it's on the cloud, you can build your own security to meet your needs. It's enriched with great security features and capabilities. You just need to know how to run them. 

Technical support is quite helpful. 

We would appreciate it if the product was cheaper. 

We've been using the solution since 2014. 

The solution is very stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Due to the fact that it is a cloud, users really do not have an issue with scalability. It can expand to meet anyone's needs. 

We have at least 200 users at this time. 

Technical support has been very good overall. they are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support.

Before Amazon, we did not use other products, however, we now also use Azure and Google. 

As a cloud service, there really isn't an installation process that's required. 

We use their subscription model.

The solution could always be cheaper. 

We have a monthly recurring cost based on usage.

As a cloud service, we are always on the latest version of the product.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten based on the feedback I've gotten from my team.

I'd recommend this service for particular use cases. However, it is important that users understand how it works. For example, it's not like you buy a server and running in a data center.

We are customers of Amazon AWS. 

This solution is very easy to use and it has a professional interface. It's easy to access and is secure, two important features. 

The cost of the solution could be improved, it's quite expensive. I find the networking to be overly complex. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

Amazon AWS is a stable product.

The solution is scalable. 

The initial setup was complex because of the networking setup we needed to create. This could have been a problem with the networking site. 

We currently use Azure as well. AWS offers a very good platform mask and is easy to use. Azure is good for creating virtual machines and creating VLANs is very easy with the Azure site.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We have a financial services application that's a very broad purpose API set. There are rest APIs for executing financial transactions and maintaining financial data. We also have a series of applications built on top of that.

Every aspect of the product is excellent. We have no complaints.

The reporting aspects of the solution are excellent. 

The documentation that is on offer is very good.

The initial setup isn't too complex. A company shouldn't have any problems implementing the solution.

The stability is very, very reliable.

The payment structure is very good.

The scalability is excellent. There aren't really any limitations

The security right now needs improvement. It's not bad, per se. It's just that there's always room for improvement in security.

I'd love to see guarding duties enhanced.

The pricing could be a bit better. It's something that can always be improved upon.

I've been using the solution for years. It's been a while.

The stability is tremendous. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's extremely reliable. The performance is excellent.

The scaling is phenomenal. We use a lot of auto-scaling. It's really fantastic. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

In our organization, we have 15 users of the product.

It is very seldom that we have had to contact technical support. That said, when we have, it's been very responsive. We are quite satisfied with the level of service provided. It's been very good overall.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not too complex. A company that would like to implement it themselves shouldn't have any problems doing so.

The solution is set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's very convenient.

The pricing could always be better, but it's pretty darn good. We're looking into some options for some pricing improvements through some Amazon partners.

There are not any additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

We did look at other clouds, however, ultimately, we chose AWS. We've been extremely happy with it.

We are just a customer and end-user.

I've been an enormous fan of AWS. It does exactly what I need it to do. It would be hard to convince me to use anything else.

I would recommend other potential users to absolutely do it. It cannot be beaten. I'll never run a data center again.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We're very happy with the product overall.