Amazon AWS Reviews

My company is a reseller of Amazon AWS. We have approximately 500 users.

I am a multi-cloud engineer and I am certified with AWS. Our primary use case is to set costs and cost integration on the cloud as well as some databases.

The cost of Amazon AWS is similar to Azure and has the same value. It is a user friendly solution.

AWS could use better integration with other products and clouds. Multi-cloud is an important solution for cost savings.

I have been using AWS for six months.

Amazon AWS provides good support.

The initial setup is easy, it's a friendly console for implementation.

The licensing costs is billed monthly.

If you are considering Amazon AWS you should think about the cost of solutions and the ability to create systems and instances.

I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

We use it to run workload applications, ERP systems, LISAP systems, etc. Everything is on the cloud, including our technical infrastructure for computing, storage, and networking. You can deploy applications like SAP or Oracle or run any website with applications on it.

You can build and release applications quickly with AWS instead of waiting for months to get the necessary hardware. That's the real benefit. The time-to-market for developing applications is much shorter. 

The most valuable thing about AWS is its ease of use and agility. You can quickly deploy it, and there are no upfront costs.

One problem is that the AWS public cloud doesn't have shared storage capabilities. The second thing is the cloud performance versus on-prem. I also have one suggestion that's solution-based. For example, if I want to deploy a medical solution, I would like to have a medical template, so I don't have to set up the infrastructure from scratch. They should provide everything in a pre-defined custom solution blueprint. 

We've been using AWS for four years.

AWS is generally reliable, but we've seen a lot of issues lately, so I would say they have some room for improvement. For example, if the user doesn't configure something correctly, it might fail. Even if AWS is reliable, that doesn't guarantee that all the users will be reliable. They need to make the design foolproof. 

AWS is a cloud provider, so the scalability is almost infinite. Our company currently has around 500 users on AWS. 

We have enterprise support, so they have different levels. If you have enterprise support, they have obligations they must meet. In our experience, Amazon support is above average. Sometimes we get good support. Sometimes we don't. I would rate it six out of 10. 

The AWS initial setup is seamless and straightforward. We set it up ourselves, and we have a 10-person team to manage and maintain the solution. Including design and planning, it took us about three months. 

I rate AWS seven out of 10. My advice is to watch out for the cost. A public cloud means you can use any resource, and there is no upfront cost. That means someone can use an expensive computing solution that might cost them tons of money. No one is holding your hand, so you can use it, but you need to be conscious of the cost before using the solution.

You can design and customize solutions with AWS. It has so many options, including storage, computing, database, notification, and messaging solutions. It depends on what the application team designs. 

I like AWS for its scalability, reliability, and availability, and it's much more mature and user-friendly compared to some other cloud providers. The learning curve and time for deployment are also shorter.

Amazon needs to develop better tools for troubleshooting network traffic, application insights, performance, and even some aspects of integration mapping. I'm hoping AWS implements something like Azure's Network Watcher and a log analytics solution where a can pull logs from various services and present them in a single dashboard. I want to summarize the performance and usage of every service and application.

All cloud solutions are scalable. It depends on the design, but most of them scale well. There are tens of thousands of users working on the solution.

Amazon technical support is great.

Deploying AWS could be straightforward or complicated depending on the use case. If it's a simple application, you can deploy it within a day. If it's very complex and your team isn't experienced, it can take months.

The amount of maintenance needed depends on your application and how you define support and maintenance. Some staff will handle things internally and others will be responsible for the cloud applications. 

I would say AWS is balanced. Cloud solutions are not cheap, and the ROI could vary widely according to your usage.

The cost depends on the usage and applications. If you're hosting thousands of applications, you'll be paying tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to usage fees, you have to factor in the costs of development teams and the staff you need to support the applications. These are the three costs you need to kind of calculate to decide on the budget.

I would rate AWS 7.5 out of 10. There are a lot of options in this space, and Microsoft is also good. We are evaluating the data on each. We would rate Azure close to eight, so they're both great solutions. 

We use AWS for the development of applications and websites for our customers. We produce web applications.

This is a highly available solution with a good API.

The documentation is very good.

Not all of the functionality is available in Europe and our customers in France want to be able to use features that are only available in the US. 

We have been using Amazon AWS for six years.

This is a stable product.

Amazon AWS is scalable. We develop projects for our clients, so the number of users grows each easy client. At this point, there are several hundred users and we plan to continue increasing our usage.

We don't use technical support very much, so I can't properly evaluate them. What I can say about Amazon is that they do not have a larger support team in Europe or even France. If we compare them to others, for example, Google has more support in our country.

AWS is the first cloud provider that we used.

The initial setup is very complex.

The first time we deployed this product, it was long. It took several weeks. Now that we have deployed it for several clients and have more experience, it only takes a couple of days.

We completed the deployment ourselves but there is a lot of documentation so it's possible, but it's better to have a consultant because it's difficult to know how to do it well the first time.

No staff is required for maintenance.

We pay monthly licensing fees.

Pricing is an area that can be improved because it is very complicated. It considers the number of processes, bandwidth, and different kinds of usage. This makes it difficult to predict. When we receive an invoice, there are always surprises. Now that we have used it for a long time, we have more information and are better able to estimate it.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to have a strategy for calculating or monitoring the price. For example, have some alerts set up.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This is a service solution for architecture. It's a cloud solution basically for anything you need. 

I'm happy with the solution.

It's very easy to use. 

The stability and performance are great.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support has been great.

I'd like the solution to be more plug-and-play.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been a while.  

The stability is very good. The performance is great and it's quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

AWS scales well. It's not a problem to expand it. 

We have 100 users using the solution at this time. They are end-users and clients. 

Our plan right now is to increase usage in the future.

I've used technical support in the past. I don't have any complaints about their services. They are quite good overall.

We did use a different solution, however, the company decided to move to AWS.

There's no installation involved. It's a very straightforward product.

As there is no installation process, you don't need a technical team and you don't have to do any maintenance. 

There is a license fee that you need to pay. There are flexible payment options. For example, you can pay monthly if you want to.

I do recommendations for the development of cloud solutions. 

I would rate the solution at an eight 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. 

My primary use case of AWS is cloud computing. I have been using the EKS, EFS, S3, and Lambda. I have a lot of experience with the Kubernetes cluster service, as well as AWS, Azure, and GCP. 

This solution is cloud-based. 

Amazon AWS has many merits, in terms of scalability, stability, and availability. I have loved using this tool. 

Amazon AWS could be improved with cheaper licensing costs. 

I have been using Amazon AWS for more than four years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

In my organization, there are approximately 500 to 1,000 users of Amazon AWS. 

Amazon's technical support is excellent. I am very satisfied with their support. 

The initial setup was very simple. I have been using Terraform as an infrastructure as code tool, and with Terraform, it's very simple. Within one day, I can provision the AWS Infrastructure as a Service tool and install our platform based on the cloud and data analytics. 

From a cost perspective, Amazon AWS is excellent. You need to pay for a license to use AWS, and the license could be cheaper, but in each of the cases and instances I've used AWS, there has been a good chance to save money. 

I rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. I usually recommend AWS because I have loved using this tool. Most of the time, I recommend it as a real-time information and patching service with Lambda.