Amazon AWS Reviews

Almost everything is good. It is a whole ecosystem. It is not only the storage, computing, or networking. It is interesting in the way all things are combined to form this ecosystem. It is a very well-built and logical ecosystem that has some small building blocks. These building blocks can be used in the right way to build a much bigger ecosystem that is robust, secure, scalable.

Its interface could be better because there are so many services right now in the product that it is quite difficult to navigate around in this. Its interface could be a subject of improvement.

I have been using this solution for six years.

It has good stability. In six years of working with Amazon AWS, I had only two major incidents, which are very few.

It is very scalable. Our clients are enterprise businesses. There are some customers who put only a part of their business on Amazon AWS, and there are some customers who put everything on Amazon AWS. In some cases, a few applications are going to the cloud, whereas in other cases, everything is going to the cloud, and the migration is huge.

Their technical support is good.

Its initial setup is straightforward. You just need to create an account.

I would recommend this solution. It is a cloud leader, and it is a safe bet. 

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

I am a software developer and I have experience with several languages and technology stacks. Amazon AWS is one of the technologies that I work with. It's integrated with the solution that we have. It's a continuous integration and deployment pipeline.

The most valuable feature is the availability, as we work in different availability zones.

It has been easy to use, and the tools included are quite friendly.

The reliability and ease of use are the benefits.

At times we find ourselves a little trapped, with the lack of customization, for what we need. That doesn't mean that the tool is lacking it means that we are trying to be more creative than the tool and the rest of the market. In cases like this, it is we who need to revise our plans.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for one year.

We are pretty happy with the stability.

The only issue that we have encountered is when Amazon had problems with one of their availability zones that impacted half of the world. We found that we were impacted as well, but it wasn't that difficult for us because we already had a solution with multiple zones. We had a minimal outage, as we were swapping from one server to another. It took less than ten minutes for us, so we were pretty pleased.

It's a scalable solution.

We have both options of vertical and horizontal scalability. Everything that we have needed so far has worked well. We have no complaints.

We are in the process of scaling up. We have an IoT solution and if we translate that to endpoints and devices that are monitored, we would have 70,000 devices, and counting, in the field. In terms of clients, there are 300 to 400, each of them with their own users.

We have contacted technical support and because we are just a small client, rather than a partner, it can take 30 minutes to get a solution. We have not had to use it much to this point, so this may not be a fair evaluation.

This solution was already in place when I started with the company. AWS was in-place and they have never switched to anything else.

Our build, or deployment, is dependent on the application, but the pipeline for submitting a new commit and making it a hot deploy would take from five to twenty minutes, depending on the solution.

For our infrastructure, the cost is approximately $25 per device, and you have to include the other tools that we have in the cloud, for a total of approximately $200,000 per year. Our tools included several databases and Kubernetes. If the price was a little bit cheaper, I would consider this solution to be a ten out of ten.

I'm not very experienced in the solution yet. I don't have a clear view of all that is offered, but with the experience that I do have, I'm pretty happy with the features and it is difficult for me to find where they are lacking.

Currently, I am switching to Redshift, which is one of their solutions that is already deployed. I can't say that I'm missing anything from their roadmap, so far.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We are a software company and we use Amazon AWS as part of the solutions that we provide to our clients. The primary use case is an internet banking system. It is used in mobile banking, digital internet banking, and corporate banking.

The most valuable feature is scalability, as it is very easy to scale.

One of the things we are concerned about is the amount of memory because when we deploy the products, we have to make sure that the client has sufficient resources.

It should be easier to monitor the performance and generate analytic information so that we can determine how to provide better support for our clients. I believe that they have a lot of information available, so maybe they can have better analytic reporting.

We have been using Amazon AWS for approximately five years.

We have faced no major issues with AWS. So far, so good, and we plan to continue using it.

Scalability is very good and easy to do.

We have three or four clients using this platform. Most of our clients start with something small, and they are looking for growth. This is one of the reasons that we are using this cloud-based system. It gives them something small to start with, that fits their requirements.

I have seen the email exchange on consulting an issue, and so far, their support is okay.

We did not use another cloud platform prior to AWS.

Installation is not a concern for this product, as it is handled by Amazon.

The only concern is during deployment and integrating with other products. However, there are solutions in place for this and it takes between one and two days to complete.

We have an in-house team for deployment and maintenance, but we also have a consultant to assist us.

This is a subscription-based service and there are licensing fees.

We explored using Microsoft Azure and another cloud, but we did not implement either one. 

In summary, this is definitely a product that I recommend because it's stable. Also, The capabilities and features are better than some of the competitors.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I am an AWS Certified Solution Architect Associate as well as a Certified Cloud Practitioner, and I am currently pursuing the development specialty. I mainly use AWS to develop cloud solutions for clients.

As a Solution Architect Associate with focus on development, my clients typically ask me to help them personalize AWS services as they pertain to the client's business. For example, I will often work with AWS SQS queues, ETL jobs, APIs and storage, and other services offered by AWS in the cloud.

Generally, my work has more to do with development rather than architecture, and other AWS services that I use include EC2, S3, Lambda, API Gateway, Amazon Connect, Alexa, DynamoDB, ECS, and EKS.

My daily activities are essentially focused around implementing AWS services for clients who want to migrate their existing computing infrastructure to the cloud. For example, if a data center is on-premise, our solution is to bring that data center to the cloud. This kind of migration includes moving all the applications that a company uses to the cloud in progressive steps. We also work to enhance their applications with extra code and the advanced features that the AWS cloud offers, like Lambda for instance. 

The clients that I work with — which include large organizations like universities — also use cloud providers other than AWS, including 3Cloud, Google Cloud Platform, and Microsoft Azure. I, however, specialize only in AWS and Azure.

Here is an example of how AWS has helped one of our clients: With Amazon Connect, we can track all activity in the past and in real-time, so we can know how many calls are in progress and if there are any problems. With a student payment system, for example, if a student has a problem because their credit card was rejected, we're able to trigger an SMS notification to somebody so they can contact the student to make a payment with a different form.

The university is thus able to offer a streamlined payment service with automatic fallback options (e.g. receiving payments with a card reader in person) and all of this is automated thanks to AWS Lambda, which lets us handle customized metrics automatically and in real time.

The AWS feature that I most enjoy is Lambda functions. I primarily use serverless components because they allow you to process things without having to compromise on resources like when running EC2 instances or virtual machines. With minimal effort, you can scale up an unlimited number of processes, even concurrently, to process things. I frequently work with web APIs, so I use Lambda a lot in this area.

Recently we had a long conversation about functionality that is missing in Alexa — in Mexico, specifically. Alexa for Business is a service and platform that Americans can use to make a call to an Amazon Echo device or a telephone via the app. But in Mexico, we are not allowed to use that technology. This is a significant disadvantage of AWS for those living in Mexico.

I also think that Amazon Rekognition could be improved. For example, I have used Rekognition to label things like trucks, buses, etc. Then we put a camera in front of a bus, so that we can send notifications if the bus driver overtakes another car on the wrong side of the road. However, it seems that Rekognition's machine learning doesn't yet have the capabilities needed to make this kind of labeling and recognition system work properly. Thus, we've had to resort to alternative solutions.

And in terms of how easy it is to learn, Amazon doesn't have the most friendly educational platform. It is very obtuse, in fact. I have wasted a lot of time and effort studying through the official channels, so now I mostly use Udemy courses instead. They are very practical and much simpler, but I would still prefer to learn from the official educational platform if it were improved.

I have been using AWS for about five years now. 

The stability of AWS is very good. 

I work with AWS Lambda all the time and I never have any problems with scaling. Recently, Lambda launched a new billing system, which is cost per millisecond. Before, we would get cost per hundred milliseconds, as the minimum, and now if we use only 10 milliseconds, then the cost for 10 milliseconds is exactly how much we have to pay. So that's great, because now I can scale my functions with a precise cost calculation.

I currently have several issues with Amazon Connect because we can only obtain two telephone numbers by default. With this scenario, there was a very difficult process to let Amazon know that we are not working for ourselves in our console, and that we offer our services as a third party, in terms of SaaS and IaaS, to our customers.

I'm not directly involved in the creation of accounts, and I just use them once they are created on the company or client's side. But in Amazon Connect, when we needed to add more users, the time response from Amazon was two or three days. We are subscribed to the developer support plan, and I think two or three days is a lot of time.

Either my company or the clients usually have the console already set up when I start work on it, so there's not much in the way of setup that I can comment on.

With the AWS projects that I lead for clients, it's basically just me that works on deployment, implementation, and maintenance.

When it comes to professional certification in AWS, I implore others to study hard before your exams because $300 is a painful waste of money if you fail.

With AWS products, there is a steep learning curve and I think there are so many aspects because it is really an ecosystem. If you are committed to reducing costs, or increasing performance, or optimizing in any manner, you have to know the solution really well.

I think the best way to achieve this is by experience, but if you don't have any experience, studying hard is the next best thing to do.

The two alternatives I've considered are Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform. However, because I am only certified in AWS, I don't know the difference between, for example, Microsoft functions in Azure and AWS Lambda functions in a commercial sense.

In a technical sense, though, AWS seems to be more comprehensive in the programming languages that it supports. For example, with AWS Lambda functions I can program in Python, PHP, Go, and many others, but with functions in Azure, you are limited to fewer options.

To our client, it's neither here nor there, because they're typically not involved in the actual development, but if you use Azure architecture then you're going to be limited to the programming languages that Microsoft supports.

If you want to take advantage of all the benefits that AWS offers, then it's best to take the time to learn how the entire ecosystem, and each part of it, works. 

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

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.

We use several tools that are part of AWS, which are onboarded to our infrastructure.

We have five or six EC2 instances that make up our AppDynamics component of the link. We are using Paperclip for restoring files, and we use other scripts as well. These are tools that we use from day-to-day.

Using AWS is really helpful for saving costs. We used to have to budget a lot for hardware costs, but now we have EC2 instances that are based on the requirements. For example, if you want one CPU then the cost is based on that, whereas if you require more, then it is automatically included.

There should be seminars and online training sessions available from AWS because a lot of people who are not using it would benefit from having the basic knowledge or basic hands-on experience. If they gain experience with it, then they will be happy to use it in the future.

Training could be in the form of more documentation or training videos. Any increase would make this solution easier to handle.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost two years.

We use AWS on a daily basis and it is really stable.

We have more than 10,000 users on AWS and we are definitely planning to increase usage. We are the MNP and we have close to one million users in our India location.

Currently, we are introducing our web support and once we need infrastructure to be installed, we will create more instances.

The technical support is really good because whenever we we need help, we just raise a ticket and we get a solution.

I know a little bit about  Azure and GCP, but I am only really familiar with AWS. From our perspective, 60% of users implement AWS.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have the guidelines and documents from AWS, so it is easy for us. AppDynamics is also supporting us for the installation of their components. 

The time required for deployment is not long. Creating an EC2 instance only takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

We no longer need a team for the installation. When we first started, they guided us, and now we have the experience that allows us to do it on our own.

AWS and its cloud platform are getting to be well known through social sites and other sources. It is definitely a product that we recommend. We have experience with it and encourage other people to use it as well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are providing a platform as a service to our customers, where we do not manage their end applications.

We do not manage their end workloads, and we do not have visibility into what applications they are running. We are just providing them with hosting services.

We pretty much like everything and we are excited about the seamless capability the EC2 service is offering.

We are mainly using VPC, EC2 instances, a bit of S3 and NAT Gateways, and NAT Instances.

The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions. It's a bit complicated to implement and to understand. It requires a lot of heavy lifting. 

I am not exactly sure if we implemented it poorly, or it is the same.

Cross-validation and logging-in are areas that need improvement.

There are many variables involved in pricing the service in AWS and overall, the pricing is a bit on the higher side. If the variable in pricing could be simplified, that will also help. Sometimes, we don't use these cost optimization tools.

I have been using Amazon AWS for six months.

We just started specifically for this engagement. 

Prior to this, I had worked on AWS in my earlier engagements for quite some time.

We haven't faced any challenges. It's seamless.

Our company is, I would say, a mid-size company. The customer for whom we are onboarding on AWS, their end-users are also from a mid-size company.

Technical support is good.

We are loving this solution so far, and it has certainly reduced the time it takes to stack up new applications. 

Also, we are using it for the first time, for this customer, and they too, are loving it. Specifically, the new application launches and testing. I think they're simply having a good time with it. 

They experiment with things and tear it off when it is not needed, so they are enjoying it.

I would certainly recommend this to others, for sure.

I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. Our experience has been great!

The initial setup was straightforward to a large extent.

We are continually migrating services, as per the client's requirement. But I think a mid-size application consisting of 10 servers can take two to three weeks to get onboarded on AWS. This is starting from discovery, planning, migration, and then going live.

I think it should be less expensive. There are many variables involved in pricing, such as data transfer, and several other things. 

You have to be very precise, and really detailed, and account for each and every thing. Only then can you do an estimation of how much the application hosting will cost you. You can't afford to be missing a single piece.

There are a lot of pieces that get embedded into costing for each service. So, it's complicated, and I really wish it should have been simpler.