Amazon AWS Reviews

We use the solution for managed hosting of the connection servers of some of our clients. 

The solution has a vast array of features and services. It offers many upgrades. 

The price of the solution is comparatively quite high in comparison with that of Azure. 

We have been using Amazon AWS for around two or three years.

The solution has good stability.

The solution has good scalability. 

I like the technical support.

The initial setup was quite easy. 

The solution could be more cost-effective. 

When it comes to cloud management, I have no complaints at present. 

I am a customer of Amazon. 

As we are, basically, only hosting cloud services, this is geared towards the end user. We manage two or three people.  

I would recommend the solution to others.

Owing to the pricing, I rate Amazon AWS as a nine out of ten. 

The scalability of the product is excellent. 

The solution is pretty mature.

In general, the cost management in Amazon is complicated. It's not too straightforward. That's a little bit of a problem that they have. 

Sometimes, their interface is kind of old. We see that they're trying to move forward and modernize, however, they've gotten a little bit behind compared to, for example, Azure, which obviously started later, and yet, has a better interface. Not better. I would like it if it was easier to reach certain items.

We have quite a bit of experience with AWS.

We have found scalability to be the most useful aspect of the product so far. it's very easy to expand to whatever size you need. 

We also use Azure and Oracle. 

While AWS is more mature, Azure has updated its user interface and seems more modern in comparison.

We implement the solutions for our clients if they need us to. We deal with AWS, Azure, and Oracle for the most part.

We are an implementor.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've mostly been pleased with the solution's capabilities. 

The solution is useful in many ways. If you want to invest in on-prem infrastructure, it is going to be a huge cost. If you could add auto-scaling features and load balancing features on AWS Cloud, the e-commerce site can use the autoscale feature to handle any traffic threshold or additional workloads. I have two, three customers who are using this feature and they are getting benefits out of it.

Amazon, in terms of cloud infrastructure, is really robust.

The product is scalable.

They provide cutting-edge features compared to other cloud vendors. 

They offer many services that are unique to AWS. 

The availability is a good feature. They have certain criteria. For global virtualization, if you want to scale and operate across the world, AWS can provide the infrastructure without limiting the performance. They have those provisions such as availability. 

In terms of latency and other things, AWS is great.

The online knowledge base is very helpful and has a vast amount of information for users.

The solution could always have better performance. 

Some extensions are better than others. 

We'd like it if the solution was more secure. 

I've been dealing with the solution for over three years. It's been a while. 

The solution is robust and stable. The solution is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution is highly scalable, especially for the storage part. They have storage called S3 Object Store, which is virtually unlimited. You can scale it to an unlimited amount. It's great.

For AWS, if I compare it to Huawei, Huawei support, Huawei is better compared to AWS, however, AWS is better compared to Google and Oracle or SAP and all of those other clouds. Due to the fact that AWS has a very good knowledge base, you can easily find answers to any issue you might have. 

I've also used similar solutions such as Oracle and Azure. I've also dealt with Huawei.

As a cloud-based solution, there isn't really an installation process. 

While some clients will take a monthly subscription, we tend to do an SLA reseller with them for a one-year or three-year contract.

I'm a reseller.

As a cloud-based solution, we're always on the latest version. We don't have to manually update it. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. Even compared to other solutions, such as Oracle and Azure, it is much better.

I've been a specialist for AWS for installation, however, I recommend solutions based on the company's requirements. However, it will help them in many ways. 

In my role as an IT architect, I design solutions for many clients. We use the solution in mobile applications with a back-end solution

The response time of technical support could be better. It is not so good. While this can likely be attributed to our lack of a premium support contract, they should still show more consideration in their response time towards first time clients. 

Moreover, as things grow, the solution will need the scalability of Amazon services for it to be very secure. More scalability will be essential. It will be important for us to incorporate certain architecture-based ideas or configurations of the signature that would need to be included in our solutions or designs. 

As an example, we developed a mobile application that will reach 10,000 users of Amazon services within its first year. The following year, it is projected to reach around 100,000 users. 

I have been using Amazon AWS during the last 12 months.

I am very impressed by the solution's stability. 

The scalability is very good, although having good security will require that its growth be in line with that of Amazon service. 

Technical support is not so good. 

Use of the four quarters service posed a problem for us during the initial setup. The setup of the initial quarters of service should be more transparent and clear to the user. Certain limits should be set up to match the varying needs of the users. 

There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees. 

I feel the solution has been working very well. 

We have worked with around eight companies over the past year involving a variety of solutions. For some of these we implemented solutions that will be utilized by a large clientele. 

My role is that of an integrator. Editors and designers are other roles. As of now, we do not have a partner relationship with Amazon. 

I rate Amazon AWS as a nine out of ten. 

I primarily use it as a cloud-based platform that's easy to scale. 

The solution offers easy provisioning and scaling on the fly.

The performance is great.

Everything is very clear and there are no complex procedures to follow. it's a very easy-to-use solution. 

The integration is very good. Integrating anything with it is easy to do. 

In IBM we have IM, identity access management. For all the solutions in AWS, identity access is not quite so straightforward. Identity and access management on AWS could be made to be much more straightforward. That is something that they could work on. If they could work on that and use it for load balancing, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half or so.

The solution performance well. The stability is very good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is excellent. Whatever your needs are, if you need to grow, Amazon can handle it. 

We have 20 people working with the product currently.

I've never gotten to the point where I needed to reach out to technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

We also use IBM. 

It's a cloud-based service. It's easy to set everything up. 

With the enterprise product, you have to pay for a license, however, if you are using the open-source version, you don't pay to license it.

We did not evaluate any other products before choosing AWS. 

As a cloud-based solution, we're using the latest version at all times. It's consistently updated.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would 100% recommend this product to other users and companies. 

Web developers use the solution for application building, modernization, cloud transformation, new development, and budget solutions. It has a wide variety of use cases.

The solution is very easy to use.

The product is nice and stable. Its performance is great.

The technical support has been good.

The solution could offer better integration capabilities.

The pricing is a bit high. It's an aspect they could improve upon.

I don't use it in my current organization. I used to use it in my earlier organization. In fact, I don't really use it, however, we used to consult on it. I've been a consultant for about a year or so.

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is great.

At my organization, there are around 100 users on the solution.

Technical support has been good. I have not heard of any customer complaints. It's my understanding that they are helpful and responsive and users are satisfied with their level of service.

I was not a part of the installation process. I cannot speak to how easy or difficult the implementation was. I have no visibility on that aspect. I'm not sure what the makeup of the technical team was or how many people were used to deploy it.

The price of the solution can get expensive. They could work to lower it for their clients.

Those that use the licensing do need to pay a fee. It can be paid on a yearly or monthly basis.

I've worked as a consultant. 

We've been quite pleased with its capabilities. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

I'd recommend the product to other users or companies. 

We are using the solution for network virtualization.

The most valuable features I have found are the Database Migration Service (DMS) for monitoring the host and routing, Route 53, and EC2 tools. The DMS is not available in any other solution that I am aware of. They have a very flexible and professional solution.

If you have not had previous training or studied guides it will be a little difficult to use the solution. However, the difficulty also depends on what you are using the solution for. They can improve by providing more documentation, such as tutorials and videos.

I have been using the solution for approximately five years.

I have found the stability very good.

The scalability is good.

The technical support has been fine in my experience.

The price of the solution is reasonable.

Amazon AWS is the most powerful tool and is at the top for cloud and for virtualization. It has many features and products. It is wonderful and I keep learning from them.

I would highly recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

I primarily used the solution more for a POC. The solution was primarily used for data lakes. However, my use case is more focused on getting the IDs up and running.

The dashboard is very good.

The solution in general is user-friendly and easy to navigate.

The product as a whole is very intuitive.

The initial setup was quite easy.

The product is reliable and quite stable.

The solution is fine for static hosting.

I cannot recall coming across any issues or any missing features. 

There are some other issues I see, but that was more on the security side, not on EC2. That's more of a technical thing. I was not able to get it up and running, however, that was a different issue altogether. It was more due to my understanding of the solution.

I want to use AWS as a full solution for my website - for domain and website hosting, and everything in between - however, I was not able to find everything together. They should work to make it an easy all-in-one end-to-end solution.

The product is a bit costly.

I've used the solution a bit, however, my specific experience is not up to date. My usage is not on the production side.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good and overall, the entire solution is reliable. 

We haven't attempted to scale the solution yet, as we are still at the POC phase. However, ultimately, that is the plan and it is my understanding that it will scale well.

We've yet to contact technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

The initial setup, in the end, was pretty straightforward.

The solution can get to be expensive.

We are using different services. We are using Alexa, for example, and static hosting. We do have a corporate account, however, we're not using a lot of services on it.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are using.

We don't have a dedicated private cloud and therefore use a public cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Overall, we enjoy using it. 

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

We usually use Amazon AWS to implement data lake solutions. We extract data from an AWS project that we implement, or we extract data from databases and centralize them with AWS components in AWS services. So, we create an infrastructure for our clients to consume their data. I like the components we use, like Amazon DMS or Database Migration Services, F3, and Amazon Athena. I think that these are the main components or the main services that we use.

I like that the products are specific and objective. We can resolve a problem using a simple configuration. It's so easy to implement a solution and solve a problem using AWS solutions. AWS has a lot of specific solutions for different use cases. I think that this is the most important thing that made us consider using AWS.

It would be better if there was a way to see which components were still on. We have some situations where I forget that some components are turned on. We forget some components are on, and we only see that these components are on when we see the bill at the end of the month.

It would also be better if AWS had specialized firewalls or integrations with leading products. For example, a specialized firewall with content filtering. We were looking for some firewall tools, and we saw that AWS doesn't have any specialized firewall tools in its services portfolio. So, we are looking for other tools like FortKnox, Forcepoint, and Check Point because we didn't find the solutions in AWS services.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about three years.

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

Customers can use it for the web-based management of the product. We also store and retrieve data for their network connections. Also, we use the AI/ML portion called SageMaker to calibrate the algorithms and basically drive automation into the customer's use case. Typically our use cases are in hotels, public transportation, convention centers - anywhere where you are sharing internet connections. For example, hotels, conventions centers - anything where you might have people jockeying for a shared internet connection with possible oversubscription or network congestion. We also have enterprise Work-From-Home users due to the pandemic and they need to continue to provide access to those remotely into their own data center, corporate network, and public cloud.

Flexible fast way to bring up servers and network infrastructure with variable costs.

We use the AI/ML Sagemaker to help us build models. 

We use several feature services on AWS, including Lambda, S3 database, RDS database, Alexa Voice Services and Cognito Gateway. They are all excellent in terms of offering great functionality.

They're pretty good about taking customer feedback and are generally able to productize the requested feature.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially if using Lightsail to start.

The solution scales very nicely.

The stability is good with a large number of Availability Zones WW.

Technical support is helpful and responsive but you must pay for a tiered support plan to ensure response.

The pricing is something you have to watch. You really have to constantly optimize your costs for instance, storage, IP's and things like that. That can become a job in itself to manage just from a budgeting standpoint if you are a moderate to heavy user. However, that's true for Azure or GCP as well. 

If they did more automation on alerting you to cheaper pricing or automated volume pricing based on time/use or even porting you on to on-demand instances automatically, that would be kind of cool. That's something that I haven't seen yet. They could just automatically optimize for your workflow and put you onto a lower-priced instance to save you money.  you Maybe allow you to pick an economy setting, or a performance setting, by time of day etc. something like that. That would be great. Then you don't have to think about it as much as you do in the current iteration.

It would be interesting to have a cost optimized accounting service so that they would come in and help remediate and give suggestions on how to cut costs. I know it's probably antithetical to their bottom line, but that said, obviously, if you take the high road there, you're going to probably keep people, and keep people from switching for lower costs. A lot of times, they can architect a better solution or a similar solution for lower cost and that would lead to customer retention--or maybe a longer term retention discount if youve stayed with them for awhile. That would be helpful if they had that. They have solutions architects, to consult however, they're usually just trying to design the best technical solution as opposed to the most cost-optimized solution. 

We've been using the solution for about four years at this point.

Services are pretty good stability-wise. They've got great redundancy. The one thing I would tweak them is when you're within the region or zone, they make it more difficult for you to do redundant zones, without carrying the IP addresses over seamlessly. That is a little bit of a sticking point, so you could have remote redundancy with the addressing there with it even outside of the AZ's. That would be a lot easier than having to go through the programming of it. 

The scalability is great. You can go from one small instance to GPU, very powerful instances, clusters. There is not any problem with scaling if you can afford it. If you've got the volume, you certainly can scale.

We have maybe a dozen or so customers that will use the product and then access the UI and the management system through the cloud. Then, of course, as developers, we have about 10 to 25 employees that have to use it to varying degrees to support the customers and do development.

I like the tech support. It varies by level in that you've got to pay more to get the immediate response time. Generally, I'd say it's pretty good. Literally phone rings minutes after you log a trouble ticket. They're usually pretty good about escalations and helping. Out of AWS, Azure, and GCP, I'd give them the number two ranking. Azure has good support, however, it's expensive. GCP probably is number three I'd say, of the top three.

We also occasionally use the Google Cloud Platform and Azure, although we tend to use AWS the most. GCP is a little bit cheaper overall, however, then you've got the cost of management that is typically a person so you do need to invest in that. 

We started with Amazon and we've pretty much stayed with them. We've switched to Google and done some work on Azure that was customer driven, however, pretty much our prime public cloud has been AWS.

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

It's pretty easy to get started. However, you do have to make an investment and learn the different cloud platform's nomenclature. Most of our guys now are cloud practitioners and architects now that they've taken the training. We had to bite the bullet even though we've been users for four years. There is an investment that you have to make on the OPEX side. That's the case for any of the public clouds. Although once you know one, you can pretty much pick up the other ones pretty quickly.

In-house

Have to watch price/billing creep, but there are tools to watch and monitor your usage and billing.  

Azure. GCP

We're a software development group building specialty LAN/WAN optimization solutions, so we don't use a lot of canned products per se.

We do tend to sue reasonably new software versions of the OS...whatever is the latest LTS selections.

If you already have your workload ready, that's helpful, as you can actually trial it under a free tier and then see what the cost is, and extrapolate what the ongoing cost is. In the end, that's what gets you. Being able to do some benchmark testing on how much it's going to cost for your particular workflow across the three public clouds is definitely something you probably want to do. Especially if you're going to scale, as, obviously, it can suddenly creep up to not just tens or hundreds of dollars a month, but thousands a month, depending upon what you're doing. I definitely would recommend doing some reference testing of your workflows before deciding on a solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. They're pretty solid. You've got all the services that you can imagine, and then some. There's a very broad breadth of products and services. We haven't had too many SLA issues for recovery or downtime. Maybe we've just been lucky or good so far...