Amazon AWS Reviews

The experience with Amazon AWS is error-free. That was also, of course, something that I really appreciate. That means it's really well-tested and, as published or as declared. So it works as-is. I think the interfaces are really quite usable and something that I think is user friendly.

I'm just bugged by the charges that I'm not really able to manage. If there is so much little stuff, that I enabled from time to time, then I get lost. And then I tend to forget about that. It would be better if there was a corresponding notification as well. I would like to see a notification indicating you have not used this instance. You might want to turn it off so as not to incur the cost or something like that. But because most of my usage is charged to my credit card. It's disappointing and frustrating at times. If they could provide some kind of entry point. Something similar to WordPress where small businesses could have an easy way to come up with a site that could behosted immediately.

My access to Amazon AWS is not so deep. I just set up VPCs and clusters or running an instance

I would say I'm quite satisfied. They're very pleasant to talk to and very helpful.

I would say that the Microsoft Azure interface is a lot slicker. But the last time I use it was around 2018. So comparing the interfaces in the dashboard views I think the Azure has the edge.

The initial setup was a little bit challenging because understandably it also tends to protect the user in terms of the security, both the user and the system. So if I understand and appreciate that level of complexity in setting how to access it, setting up the identities, and then once you get through it, I think the interfaces are really quite usable and something that I think is user friendly.

I would certainly recommend Amazon AWS. It's very useful because you can easily try out your compute requirements, whatever storage or whatever other services that you may want. I would rate Amazon AWS at an eight on a scale of ten.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I have been providing consulting services around the cloud solution for the past four to five years, during which AWS was the market leader and the de facto cloud service. AWS definitely helped me to help my customers adopt a cloud strategy smoothly and in a timely manner.

Elasticity has always been AWS's mandate. The flexibility of their platform from a systems perspective lives up to its claims.

• I would have hoped that their networking model was a little more network oriented and flexible, as is their systems model.
• The networking models used in AWS, while functional, do have room for improvement. This is especially the fact, considering that they are built/presented from a systems perspective.
• More granular control of networking, as well as a richer set of networking features, could really go a long way in building globally scalable infrastructures.
• The Identity and Access Management (IAM) authentication model could use some work as well. The fact that it isn't very straightforward/streamlined to authenticate applications that are not running on AWS infrastructure can complicate things when trying to use different (non-AWS) environments for specific activities. A simple and common example of this is working in a development environment, and having code that relies on interacting with AWS services. Being forced to store sensitive key information in your codebase isn't a very secure manner of operations.
• Given the recent surge of adoption and interest in containers and container orchestration, Amazon ECS is seen as a proprietary Amazon service. This makes it impossible to use Amazon ECS on other platforms, whether for development purposes, or for rolling out multi-cloud types of deployments. If you use an alternative, such as Kubernetes, this can easily be configured and ported to any environment, as it is an open-source project.

I have not had any issues with stability on AWS. However, it is worth noting that they did have uptime issues in the past. While there weren't many issues, they still did happen.

The only issue that I faced with scalability was due to the soft limitations that AWS applies on the allowed number of resources, e.g., the number of VPCs per account, the number of EIPs per VPC, etc.

I do not have much experience working with AWS's technical support. However, their forums are vast and pretty full of useful information.

AWS was sort of the first of its kind, so I did not use a different solution previously. However, today I find myself a lot more invested in the Google Cloud Platform, as oppose to AWS.

It was relatively straightforward to install. I have read reviews of others facing issues with getting their accounts approved. However, I never faced such issues.

Be careful with your consumption, especially when you are testing things. Costs can creep up on you relatively fast, without even noticing.

As mentioned earlier, since AWS was the first of its kind, I didn't really have many other options at the time. I remember one of the other players at the time was Rackspace, but they were considerably more expensive than AWS.

Picking a cloud platform is not a process that should be taken for granted. The leading cloud service providers today each have their pros and cons. It's best that you assess your options, and start with the cloud platform that best suits your needs. After that, your next step would be to start considering a multi-cloud strategy.

Dynamic usage and flexibility in choosing configurations. Also the fact that Amazon’s security team is much larger than anything I could ever assemble gives me reliance that this run time environment is going to be more secure than anything I can deploy.

I needed to stand up a prototype server that did not conform to my corporate IT standards. By using AWS I was able to stand up my prototype in a few hours, run my demo and be done.

The connection between the billing console and the management console is not obvious so shutting down a machine was hard to find initially and resulted in excess billing.

I have been using this solution for 5 years.

No issues with deployment.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Customer Service: Customer service was pretty good. It was responsive but it took 2-3 iterations on the billing/Management issue before they understood the problem I ran into.Technical Support: The technical support was a 7 on a scale of 1-20

I have used Amazon Elastic Beanstalk and Windows Azure. My primary choice to use AWS was because the prototype server stack was specified as an AMI (Amazon Machine Image).

If you have not used AWS, its not as straightforward as it could be to choose what stack configuration a particular AMI requires before loading it. OTOH the “Amazon Web Service Pricing Calculator” is currently the gold standard for cloud vendors.

We implemented in-house.

Not applicable, the ROI came from the agility to quickly standup the environment I needed.

Approximately $200/mo.

I have used Azure, and Horuko.

Use the AWS pricing calculator to understand how the services fit together.

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.

Public Cloud

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. 

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)