Amazon AWS Reviews

It's quite stable and scalable. The price is good as well.

It would be good to see integration with a low code platform. They have one, but it is for intervention. It would be interesting to see it more developed.

I've been using Amazon AWS for a year and a half.

It's quite stable.

It's a scalable solution. It is used by our entire organization.

Our experience with technical support was as expected; they responded fast.

The price is quite good; it is a pay-as-you-go option.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Amazon AWS at eight.

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...

We use this solution predominately to reduce the amount of effort we need to migrate to the cloud. 

We have had some difficulty figuring out how to monitor how many EC2 instances have been networked into our entire enterprise. We usually try to create a diagram outside of AWS. The types of information we are trying to determine are, for example, what hardware devices are interconnected, and when was the interconnection made.

It is difficult to extrapolate budgeting costs and schedules from the information gathered from the usage of the solution in our systems. We are given a large lump sum of money at the beginning of the year for our budget but it is hard to summarize costs to put down on paper for justification or projections.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

This solution is stable and reliable.

We are planning on moving more of our systems to the cloud. Currently, we have approximately 60% of our applications on the cloud.

Our developers found the installation a moderate level of difficulty, there was not anything that was complex. It is helpful to have some tutorials to follow.

The solution is on a pay-as-use pricing model. The price of the solution could always be better but it is priced competitively.

We have evaluated Lambda, and in some cases, it might be a better option than EC2. However, we have decided to go with EC2 because it is closer to a drop-in displacement which works better with our applications, for example, Spring Boot and other similar variations.

My advice to others is EC2 has its specific use case needs like other solutions, such as Lamda. If you have the need for a specific use case this solution could be the right choice. For example, it is possible to have your monolithic application on the cloud and decompose it into your microservice architecture or use it with Lambda capabilities. You can do this and have a high percentage of your application on the cloud. However, you need to be sure it is the right choice, it is something you need to be careful of.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for all modern application development and data-led processes as well as for building architecture, AWS Lambda and more scalable solutions for our clients on AWS cloud. I'm a practice partner of data analytics and AI.

This is a great cloud platform and scalability is an outstanding feature. It's very useful. 

I think the solution could be more user-friendly, like Microsoft products. They could include a lot more applications and make free resources available. I'd like to see more code application within AWS to build modern and good applications. A lot of cases we deal with need to write a lot of code in AWS and it would be helpful if there were designer functionalities.

I've been using this solution for six years. 

This is a very scalable solution. Most of the enterprises use AWS today, it's the number one cloud provider today. 

AWS technical support is good. They have a partner that provides us with technical support. It's managed either by AWS or by partner support, and it's good. 

Because the solution is on cloud, there's no real installation. You download to the cloud and login. When it comes to infrastructure positioning you need to have different teams. It requires some infrastructure support but it's fully managed by AWS. We plan to increase usage. 

Licensing options are either a monthly pay for use option or a contract option.

I would definitely recommend this solution. 

I rate this product a nine out of 10. 

We have, for example, a big analytical platform running on top of AWS. We have many Lighthouse projects in the digital space running on AWS. We have so many things running on AWS. We use it for storage services. We use it for computing services. Its use cases are really very broad.

The product is very easy to use. It's flexible.

It's the leading cloud platform in the world, and it has a very wide variety of services.

The product has a very good ecosystem of its own. 

The product has proven itself to be very stable.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support is quite helpful.

The solution could always be further improved on the commercial side of things. Amazon Web Services are not cheap. It would be ideal if it was less expensive for the customer.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. We're a good AWS customer.

The stability is very good. the performance is excellent. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. Overall, it's excellent.

The solution can scale very, very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so without too much trouble. 

Currently, I would say, the number of end-users who use applications on top of AWS is only at about 1,000.

We do have plans to continue to use the product and to expand it in the future. We will be scaling it ourselves. 

We've used technical support in the past. We've been very happy with them overall. I have no complaints. they are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. 

There is no installation or implementation per see. It's a cloud service. You simply have to sign up.

The solution can get rather pricey. It should be more reasonable. It's our main complaint about the product - the total cost of ownership is just too high.

We aren't buying licenses, we are buying cloud services. 

We are an enterprise with thousands of applications. We have really a broad mix of infrastructure. We have a technology standard list of several thousand products. We use a lot of AWS services. We're a customer and an end-user.

As a cloud-based solution, we're always using the latest version.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with it overall. 

I would recommend the product to other users and companies. 

We are primarily using the solution as real-time streaming to our data-lake. We also have microservices publishing to APIs. It's a customer 360 application. 

We also used the product for migration from on-prem Hadoop to AWS EMR.

We used to spend about $57,000 on-perm with another solution. Then we lifted and shifted to AWS. It came down in cost to about $33,000 while maintaining the same inner software with Apache Kafka. However, we then got into ECS Fargate, and that brought costs down further to about $22,000. When we removed ECS, we moved into a serverless Lambda for 45 million, and our billing is now $8000 per month. It's an amazing amount of savings.

The solution's API Gateway is very good.

The storage on offer is excellent. 

Recently they improved a lot in the analytics that they have on the backend. 

It's great that the product is completely serverless. 

The implementation for end-to-end, for Lambda serverless implementation, is excellent. I do run about 16 million messages per day with their Lambdas, for my API microservices.

The initial setup is not difficult.

We get a lot of exception errors, and we're working with AWS to figure out how to fix that. when we lift and shift . We get a lot of alerts. 

As our serverless Lambda is maintained by AWS, in a certain aspect,  we need to gain some more visibility into what is going on when problem happens with AWS serverless 

Their metadata management in AWS needs improvement. They need a centralized metadata management tool, where it can be integrated with  outside metadata tools  with the API. We really need a central metadata framework.

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

The stability of the solution is very good. there are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. That said, initially, we did have a few problems, however, everything has ironed out. It's great now.

Scalability-wise, the product is very good. The Lambdas and the serverless architecture are very good on AWS. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease.

We have a lot of APIs, and we'll run them on my customer 360. There are six departments that use the product. We have about 1,000 users currently.

We've dealt with technical support in the past and have not been satisfied for the most part. Azure's technical support is much better. AWS often can't help us resolve our issues. But they brought some good consultants basing on our request and helped us . The account Manager always there when he took over this account .  

 i recommend IAAS AWS , for IPAAS ( integration as platform service) and Hybrid cloud Azure

We've also planed for  Azure. We've found Azure to be much more helpful when dealing with issues than AWS has been. I prefer them over AWS in support , application development  and integration as platform. But AWS has great products like S3 , API gateway , transit gateways , route 53 . AWS has  more OS options than AZURE and database offerings. their EMR is good with spark and python but not well supported for Scala and HBase. AWS serverless offerings are very good with out any major problems which includes ECS with fargate and EKS . But we got a good support from account manager

The initial setup is not complex. When we lifted and shifted faced lot of problems on EMR. Moved to ECS, as well as serverless Lambda, it's was that difficult then. That said, we had to think about how we run our Lambdas, and what problems we are facing or might face.

We're also facing a few problems due to the fact that we use encryption, HCM. When we initially started loading this data, batch data, a lot of Lambdas came, and our limit in HCM is only about 5,000 a minute, however, it quickly jumped up to 20,000 which made it so that we could not load, and errors came up. We had to turn to AWS to get assistance. We just ask them if we can have space over a few days for 20,000 and then they scale it back to 3,000. they helped us 

In terms of the implementation strategy, ours took about eight months. The lift and shift happened within 3 months. Then, we took another four months as we had a lot of problems with our scale-up programming due to multiple issues - for example, libraries, EMR, AWS doesn't have. We faced some problems when we had to change our code according to AWS, or we have to bring in those libraries on our own. So that's where it took time, maybe four months.

For ECS, it took about 30 days to move everything we needed to. 

We don't have a lot of staff to maintain the product. We have about eight people who are capable of doing so. For example, we have someone on infrastructure, who is an architect and we have an enterprise architecture team. I have four developers, two for API and two for Lambda, and one is a systems admin. 

Initial setup environment helped by AWS free . We were able to handle every aspect of the implementation in-house. We didn't need any consultants or integrators. We used our systems manager so that all of our deployments - including environments and keys - can be stored on our SSM. A lot was automated as well.

excellent in covid -19 situation . 

We saw a lot of cost savings when we switched over to AWS. It can really save a company a lot of money.

Azure and AWS 

I'm a user and  implementer.

The solution is on the cloud; it's always the latest version. It's constantly being updated, and we're always using the latest version.

We use both public and hybrid clouds as deployment models.

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

We mainly use AWS for migrating onto the cloud or for analytic services and machine learning. 

I like many features, like the recently released useful analytics features. There are many from the data analytics or database side.

The price could be better. Support for data analytics could be better. I don't see much support for data analytics. They have a lot of support in Azure, but I don't see a lot of innovation on the data analytics side in AWS.

I have been dealing with Amazon AWS for the last two years.

AWS is a stable and flexible solution.

AWS is a scalable product.

Technical support is customer-friendly and knowledgeable.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. They have very good documentation, and if you can follow the script, you can do it. I was trying to do it with the Datacom script, and I was able to make services like VPC and EC2 in the database cloud seamlessly.

The prices are somewhat on the higher side. It would help if they can bring it down, especially for the sporting segment and for on-demand instances.

I would recommend Amazon AWS to potential customers.

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

We host the service for customer products. Those services are utilized by different product lines, which can be used on AWS.

One of the features offered is scalability on demand.

It's user-friendly.

There are some areas that are not great. For example, with some Microsoft technologies such as .NET, you will have a difficult time deploying it on AWS. It works very well with open-source solutions like Java, but not with .NET technologies.

I would like to see more alerts added to the system. Preemptive alerts would be very good. It is something that happens and you have to do a lot of configuration at that time, which can be complex.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It's stable and a pretty robust solution.

It's a scalable solution that features scalability on demand, which is working perfectly fine.

We change the core on demand. We can increase the capacity on demand.

We have 10,000 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We have dedicated support. Once we have deployed it, support comes as part of the service because it is incorporated with the solution.

We get all of the support that we need.

The initial setup was definitely complex, but not because of AWS. It is complex because we need to upgrade to be compatible with AWS, which is related to the product and not AWS. The setup of AWS is straightforward.

We deployed it in a cluster way. Initially, it took a week to set everything up.

The first time it took longer, then became straightforward. It only takes a couple of hours now.

Licensing can be purchased on a yearly basis, which is an auto-renewal. We also have an on-demand on-pay purchase.

If, for example, we have provisions for other things and we have a three-peak season then we add more core, more hardware for the on-premises machines. During those periods it is on-demand but the rest of the time it is licensed with a yearly subscription.

The pricing is reasonable.

I would recommend this solution but there are some areas that need improvement. It doesn't integrate well with some technologies and preemptive alerts would be very helpful.

I am happy with this solution, and I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS together with MuleSoft's CloudHub, because CloudHub is an extension of Amazon VPC. As part of that, when we set up the infrastructure and everything, we will be interacting with Amazon products. And with big customers, we have data in the private cloud and within that private cloud we have the MuleSoft CloudHub which is connected through the organization's private cloud to a specific geographical AWS public cloud. Regarding security, we also have a number of layers there, too.

As an example, we have seen approximately 300 ETFs developed for different areas, e.g. for United Arab Emirates and other customers. And the internal customers are also using AWS. All in all, there are approximately 10,000+ users who are using it, and things are going pretty well.

The reason I like AWS is that they have a large market share and a large presence. When it comes to our use case, a big positive is that MuleSoft and AWS are working together very well. So instead of competing against each other, they're meshing together.

There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all.

One thing is that sometimes it becomes a problem when troubleshooting our tools because when you have some things local and some things remote on a foreign server, it can get complicated. We find that sometimes it's a challenge to gather the necessary information from logs and such because you need the proper agreement to capture those details. 

In the future, I would like to see Amazon move more into local clouds, by capturing more of the small market. Nowadays, spending a lot of money is not on the list of priorities for many companies, especially considering what's going on in the world. We want to leverage whatever amount is available and still get all the benefits of new AWS cloud offerings.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a couple of years now. 

The infrastructure of AWS is very stable.

AWS is very scalable. 

I've never worked with technical support personally because we have a lot of network engineers to handle that. 

When it comes to pricing, not all applications require that much performance. That's the reason why other cloud markets are also catching up, because the two predominantly high-performance platforms, AWS and GCP, are almost the same.

Looking at the primary market for AWS, I see that there's a lot of customers who have only mid-level performance requirements, because you will have all these normal applications such as online auction websites, gaming applications, voice applications, and so on. These are not, for example, large monitoring applications, financial independents, or brick and mortar companies. So AWS caters to about 40% of the market when it comes to general applications.

As it happens, in many cases, you simply don't need the high-performance offerings from AWS, nor the innovative products from Google Cloud Platform, which can come with large price tags.

Overall, AWS is pretty good and I can definitely recommend it because it's a proven product. When you're solving big problems, you want — first and foremost — proven infrastructure, technology, tools, and mechanisms. Then slowly, you'll be able to remove dependencies by moving to others as needed. So for project initiation and everything, you get to rely on something which is rock solid and proven in the industry with a long track record.

I know AWS can be an expensive option, but it doesn't have to be out of budget if you choose the appropriate level of product for your performance requirements. They can provide high-performance computing resources, while at the same time catering to the mid-level market with lower performance offerings. 

Previously, in the initial days of AWS, back in 2005/2006, there were some concerns about security and such things, but nowadays there is not much to worry about because a lot of those concerns have been taken care of. Recently, there has been another shift in attitude towards them, because not everybody is a big fan of public cloud because of what is happening in the world with respect to data privacy and everything.

Regardless, the three big names of Microsoft, Google, and AWS are really grabbing the market, and IBM is also catching up well. Because of the data privacy concerns, however, I do see some customization in European countries who are interested in interacting with the cloud market at a more local level.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for POCs, different experiments, or IoT devices.

The flexibility of the solution is excellent.

The ease of use is great. You can bring something up very easily and tear it back down just as easily. 

Our first system is about to be released. It's our flagship and it's going really well.

The solution scales up extremely well.

They're spinning up and going faster. Anything and everything would you ask for in terms of your feedback they take back and build it and the next thing you know the feature you wanted is available.

The product has a lot of new functionality.

There's always room for improvement, however, they're building out new products. 

The problem with AWS is you have to keep up with the technology. If you don't stay up to date with the technology and its latest changes then you won't know what to use in your infrastructure. For example, as soon as you finish building one thing, then they've already updated to something new. They're always continually updating, rebranding, and rebuilding. 

They tend to oversell before a product is ready.

The solution needs to have more security features continuously added to it.

It would be ideal if they could continue to build a more hybrid collaborative solution - something that allows users to be on-prem, on cloud, or wherever they need to be to build. I'm looking for more AWS to Microsoft (or AWS to Linux) authentication solutions.

There are a lot of management requirements. You need to manage every aspect surrounding the solution, and it can sometimes be a lot.

I've been using the solution for ten years. We've used it over the last 12 months. We have a lot of experience with the solution.

Every system has bugs and glitches, however, for the most part, I haven't had any problems with it. In maybe out of 10 years, I might've seen servers fail three times in my life. Their durability is almost perfect. The stability is excellent. You can rely on their product.

The solution scales up very well. You can easily expand to however big you like. There doesn't seem to be much of a limit. It's very easy to do so as well.

If you scale something up and if you already have your scripts, your JSON, your LAN, and scripts running, and it sees the joint unit, then it brings it right back down. For example, it only uses what you need. If you build in it according to AWS's best practices, then you have a lean mean machine. If you're using their best practices, you'll be fine. 

We are using the solution more for POC purposes, and therefore there are only three people on it currently.

I would them a nine out of ten as a rating. However, the problem we have is not with AWS. Rather, we don't allow them to touch our infrastructure. We've got a lot of security issues and protocols. It's not an AWS issue, it's the way the corporation is built, and that's due to the fact that what we do is highly sensitive.

We would need to ask for specific professional services if we did run into issues.

I have experience with Microsoft as well. 

The difference is that Microsoft is everybody's house and everybody's corporation. AWS is more for if you want to do something new. If you want to just test something new and if you don't have the money, if you just want to learn, you can do something for almost nothing. You can just spin up something and just spin it back down and pay zero. They're moving into what they call this Self-Service Arena now, so then that way you can start building infrastructure. For example, your developers or your designers can actually go in and have a space that they can play in. That's one of the problems that people have with development. People need spaces, where they can go in and build stuff to try.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward.

The pricing can be very difficult to determine due to the fact that there is so much selection.

We are an AWS customer.

We're using the latest version of the solution. It's always updated, as it's on the cloud and is constantly the latest.

I'd recommend the solution to others. We've been pretty happy with it in general.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten due to the fact that they're very flexible. They can be overzealous and challenging at times, however, they really believe religiously in their product, and you can go find many people that know how to use AWS.