Amazon AWS Reviews

I use AWS for our insurance portal, managing clients, investments, and other related data.

We use S3, Lambda functions, and EC2 instances for various tasks, including RDR instances.

Its set up is plug and play, so it improves the implementation.

AWS is known for its scalable cloud hosting and computing services. We use various features depending on our needs, including endpoint services, database instances, and EC2 instances.

There is room for improvement in pricing. 

I have been using it for two years.

It's stable. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. Maybe some technology gap, which we don't know is there. 

It's scalable. Currently, around 1500 users are using our application. We might increase the further usage. 

We only contacted customer service and support once. The response was very quick.

Setting it up was easy.

The entire deployment process took us around two to three months. It is a manual process but we plan to automate it with Terraform soon.

We did it in-house. We learned and upgraded our skills ourselves.

We had a team of admins and developers for the deployment process.

It's a bit expensive but stable and easy to use. Licensing fees depend on the contract. It can be monthly or on-demand resources.

AWS is very good to use. Moreover, the integration between various AWS services is very easy. 

Overall, I would rate my experience with AWS a seven out of ten. 

We build business applications for our customers using Amazon AWS in 15 different industries.

Many of my customers use many cloud services together.

The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are the high level of capabilities, cloud-native environment, developer-friendly, intuitive interface, and automation. The solution overall is easy to learn from the resources available.

The customization could improve. However, it depends on the customization needed. 

To enhance its capabilities, Amazon AWS should improve its integration with other digital security platforms and solutions, especially those used by companies in domains, such as banking, financial services, and insurance. While Amazon AWS has its own solution, there are many other initial vendor companies that perform exceptionally well. Therefore, it is crucial for Amazon AWS to have better integration with those platforms and solutions, including how to host and integrate them with the rest of the Amazon AWS services. Although Amazon AWS has its strengths, it doesn't always work seamlessly for customers, making it a significant obstacle to migrating applications to Amazon AWS. Rather than focusing on developing new features, Amazon AWS could better serve its customers by supporting these existing solutions in the digital security space.

There are many excellent encryption solutions available, along with many other solutions. By supporting these solutions and offering easy integration, Amazon AWS can create a win-win situation for its customers.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately seven years.

When you have complex deployments, such as with more than two availability zones, there are reliability, and resiliency options that are complex to implement and expensive. Providing stability or more complex deployments is possible, but very expensive.

I rate the stability of Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We have more than 50,000 users using this solution in my organization. Everyone in our company is using the solution.

The solution is highly scalable.

I rate the scalability of Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

The support provided by Amazon AWS is highly responsive. We have a strong alliance with Amazon AWS, and we regularly interact with their teams. They conduct knowledge-sharing sessions for us and keep us informed about new features. They are always available to support us. They have helped us from the inception phase of any large engagement up to providing help in troubleshooting some problems. They are extremely helpful.

I rate the support of Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with Google Cloud Services and Microsoft Azure.

Amazon AWS is known for building many industry platforms, and companies often look to all three hyper scalers to help them build such platforms on Amazon AWS. Large consortia of companies collaborate on such initiatives. However, Google and Azure are more interested in partnering with and supporting industry-level consortiums and technology initiatives, while Amazon AMS sees it more as an engineering capability and expects developers to build everything from the ground up. Therefore, Amazon AMS may need to adjust its approach slightly in comparison to its competitors.

The simplicity of Amazon AWS depends on the engineering processes implemented by the client's organization. Setting up these processes may take some time, but the AWS SDK provided by Amazon is helpful. Moreover, integration with other tooling is also necessary.

Once the processes and platforms are configured, the execution becomes automatic. This has been successfully accomplished in many engagements where pipelines are run for tasks, such as provisioning new infrastructure and making multiple releases.

For a business with a small deployment and with minor features needed the process of implementation can take 30 minutes and in some instances less than 15 minutes. However, if it's a large release with multiple features, including verifications, it can take up to one and a half hours maximum. The more features added the longer the implementation will take.

In comparison to Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure, the database offered by Amazon AWS is relatively expensive. However, the database also offers rich features.

I rate the price of Amazon AWS a six out of ten.

If you compare Amazon AWS with other hyper scalers, such as Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS is the most sophisticated cloud development platform.

The amount of people for the maintenance of the solution depends on the engagement we have with our customers. Some of our customers are sophisticated with modern infrastructure and can handle most of the maintenance themself.

The engineering team responsible for development also handles maintenance, upgrades, and support without any differentiation. However, some customers still follow an older mindset, where a separate ops team is responsible for platform maintenance and operations.

One approach is to have a centralized model where a team of 20-30 members manages all the applications, including operations and maintenance. Alternatively, a distributed model may be used, where four or five different teams manage different aspects. However, on average, the team size for the entire IT organization is typically around 20-30 people.

I strongly recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

I gave my rating of eight because the price of the feature is more expensive than the competitors.

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.

I use the solution in my company to use several services like ECS, EKS, and S3 while also making it easy to use its hosting services in our infrastructure. The solution is good for efficiently leveraging all the aforementioned services to host different products.

The cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon AWS for around six years.

The solution's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product's scalability is good.

All the people in my company use the product. My company has engineers, software developers, site reliability engineers, and DevOps engineers who use the product.

The solution is used on a daily basis in my company.

For the purpose of scaling our company's operations, we host most of our applications on Amazon EKS. My company uses third-party open-source solutions for scalability purposes, so we are not completely dependent on Amazon AWS for autoscaling.

My company takes care of the problems related to the product. My company doesn't contact the product's technical support team. Though I have some previous experience with the product's support team, I haven't recently contacted them.

Previously, I worked with a tool on an on-premises model. I chose Amazon AWS since I wanted to use a cloud-based product.

My company is not dependent on Amazon AWS for deployment purposes since we use our own tools to handle the deployment area. My company uses Amazon AWS for the underlying platform but not for the deployment area since we have our own setup for it.

The initial setup phase may be pretty easy for those who learn to gain knowledge and expertise in Amazon AWS. At the initial stage, the product's users may look for more documentation on the tool, but I feel that the services under Amazon AWS are self-explanatory. I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven or eight out of ten.

I am a part of the team in my company that carries out the product's deployment in multiple regions.

The product's deployment process consists of a fully automated setup phase. Though my company had to be involved in a lot of engineering work in the initial phases, only around four to six members were required to take care of the deployment after the automation.

The solution can be deployed in around 10 to 15 minutes.

The tool is expensive.

As of now, our company does not need to leverage Amazon AWS for Amazon Big Data Analytics or Amazon Machine Learning. In the future, Amazon AWS can be used to leverage the benefits of Amazon Big Data Analytics or Amazon Machine Learning. Presently, my company plans to stick with the microservices model.

There is no need to maintain the product from our company's end since Amazon AWS takes care of the maintenance of the services the tool covers.

For cost saving, shut down instances when not in use and use spot instances while implementing step scaling policies. Doing regular audits, you will get to know what resources in your environment are leading to cost consumption.

AWS Global Cloud Infrastructure does not directly impact our company's application performance and availability. My company just consumes the services covered under Amazon AWS, after which we plan our application architecture. The impact is felt if Amazon removes support for some of its global products, as it may impact some legacy applications, but my company does not face many issues since we mostly upgrade such applications.

I rate the overall tool a seven or eight 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.

My use case involves hosting websites and setting up all the source code on the server. I manage their server, especially when new starters are launching.

It has helped by minimizing costs and setting up infrastructure efficiently.

Support is really good. The solution provides a user-friendly dashboard and a highly user-friendly user interface. It has contributed by minimizing costs and efficiently setting up infrastructure for the organization.

Recently, new dashboards have been launched. This new UI is an improvement that they have made.

I have been using AWS for three years.

Stability is rated as nine out of ten. There are no issues with downtime, bugs, or glitches.

It is a scalable product and works well.

The technical support is excellent, rated at nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not complex and does not take much time.

Around six people were involved in the deployment.

AWS is cost-efficient and cheap for some services. Overall, it offers an affordable deployment with a very minimum possible rate.

I recommend AWS as it's very scalable and cheap for some services. 

I rate the overall solution nine out of ten.

The thing is, in case of disaster, then you really need to think about the disaster, which is less cost-effective. If I'm the customer and I have a midsized environment, I need to host a web application or a front-end application. Why should I go with this on-premises data center, the firewall, the hardware, and then monitoring, then administration? These are more cost-effective. 

So, I will go with the midsized and small-sized public cloud where I can have the opportunity for high availability with the region side. And secondly, in case of disaster, we have the product available without any downtime.

The style, the thoughts, and the people are still not convinced with this public. But they don't have any other options. It has been changed after the pandemic only.

The best thing is scalability.

Some people complain that customization is very difficult in AWS. So they think there are other options. If we have everything ready in AWS or any public cloud, if I have two deployments in bulk, then I will get automation. If automation is ready, then I can do everything in a single click.

In future releases, I would like to see more automation.

I started using this solution after the pandemic. So, it has been three years now. And one thing I have noticed is that after the pandemic, it is more recommended to move to the public cloud. 

Prior to the pandemic, people were thinking of expanding their data strategically with Cisco UCS. They thought in that way. But now the approach has changed.

I used Amazon AWS for a small business, like a midsized business that wants to build their environment in the public cloud. And they want to get high availability, and in case of disaster recovery, they can have other opportunities.

We don't have a much bigger environment. So we have a smaller environment, like 10 to 15 VMs.

For a smaller project in Europe, we deployed Dell VXL for 35 sites. The customer has now invested in Dell VXL and is building 30 to 35 sites for Dell VX-ten. This is a huge investment, so they need to stay on this platform for five years. By the end of their standard support period, their hardware will be end of its life. In the meantime, they are exploring the public cloud to create a hybrid environment. Once their hardware becomes obsolete and offline, they will definitely consider the public cloud. Similarly, people who are still on-premises with legacy or Cisco systems will also consider the public cloud. They are in the existing environment and are just waiting for their hardware to reach the end of life. For the next expansion, they want to move to the cloud.

The initial setup is easy.

In a cloud environment, we need just to associate that business. If I have to build approximately 10 to 15 VMs, we have the templates. We have the AMI. We have everything in place. We need to just automate and place everything in the dashboard. It is very easy to customize.

I will recommend you to use it, at least explore what services they are offering, what features they are offering.  

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Amazon AWS provides a total solution and helps us to run applications.  

The tool is a hosting platform that we can leverage to open servers. We can use it to build databases. We use cost management and high-performance capabilities of the tool. 

Amazon AWS should integrate AI capabilities. 

I have been using the solution for five to six years. 

Amazon AWS has bugs. It is not a big issue since the product is a SaaS solution and fixes them. 

My company has around 1,000 users who use the product daily. 

I used Microsoft Azure before. I chose Amazon AWS since it has APIs that I can use for software development. 

I rate the product's installation a nine out of ten. One resource is enough to handle the deployment. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten.