Amazon AWS Reviews

I'm a service provider providing services to customers. I'm using AWS as sort of a generalization. There are 62 products offered by Amazon on cloud-related services, which include EC2, includes Silverlight, it includes a whole bunch of different solutions, F3, EBS, so we've got solutions that we have to support for all of it.

Glacier is one of the solution's most valuable features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The user interface (UI) needs improvement. Right now, it's not the best.

The product's authentication method could be better.

The pricing model could have a more competitive edge.

It would be great, in a future release, if the solution offers unified hybrid management, or hybrid cloud management.

I've been using the solution for four years at my current company. Personally, I have about eight years of experience with the product. I've worked with it for quite a long time at this point.

Generally, the solution is pretty stable. That said, when they have an event or an outage, it's pretty severe.

The solution is quite scalable. A company that needs to expand the solution should be able to do so pretty easily.

We have applications that run on AWS. However, in terms of administrators or interface people, that interface with AWS directly, we have probably about 80 users on the product.

I personally have never conversed with technical support. That said, I haven't heard of any complaints about their level of service. From that, I would assume that our organization is largely satisfied with their support offering.

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

If you know the patterns for how to set up and host, it's a quick deployment. We normally automate all of our deployments anyway, so the deployment process itself is quick and easy.

The product is an a la carte service. It offers a set of microservices that are associated with it. Therefore, the solution pricing varies quite a bit.

The pricing could be more competitive. If a company is questioning whether it's cheaper than owning a server yourself and running a server yourself, the general answer to the total cost of ownership is yes, it is cheaper. However, if you have to move data around a lot, it will not be cheaper.

We've evaluated other options as we use a variety of other solutions as well. We've evaluated a lot of other companies.

We're an Amazon partner as well as customers of theirs.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I would recommend that most small to medium businesses that they use a consultative agency or a managed service provider to help them with the product.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

• ECS (EC2 Container Services)
• EC2
• RDS
• Route 53

At this point, we have been testing applications that are managed by third-parties. The benefit we see at this stage is mainly cost. We are now starting to see the benefits that the platform has to offer.

At this stage, we have found the services we are using are meeting our needs. We have been asked by management to incorporate high-security (encrypted email and data volumes) on all services. Some of the security features require extra configuration to achieve that.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about seven months.

At this point, there have been no stability issues.

Scalability has been good using services like ECS, ECR Load Balancing, and Auto Scaling features.

We have not had a need to engage support for any assistance.

Our previous solution was supported by a third-party. We saw the opportunity to reduce cost by managing it ourselves, in-house.

The setup was easy at first, because a lot of the services are wizard driven. We found as we needed to customise the services further, we had to do most of this manually to get the desired result.

Pricing has been quite surprising, since we are running both DEV and UAT platforms simultaneously. It is definitely cheaper than the solution that has been managed by the third-party.

We did not evaluate other options. This was the one that management had chosen. I do not believe this was based on a technical viewpoint. I just think it was decided.

You have to be able to not think as if on-premises systems are sitting in a data centre. Everything, and I mean everything, is a service that is launched by a script. We are able to run up a platform, say UAT, entirely in about an hour. The plan will be to do this entirely by scripts.

We deploy our core application and our integrations platform on AWS EC2 instances. Both applications contain multiple containerized Python Django applications, which need to scale with how often and how intensely customers use the platform. 

We need a secure cloud environment to support our new self-service API, allowing customers to hit our services from outside an outside service. AWS provides the security, scalability, and flexibility to make this happen.

We also store large customer files on AWS S3 Buckets.

Without AWS, our organization simply would not exist. Our entire tech stack is served on AWS. Thanks to AWS, we have been able to save money. Thanks to AWS, we have been able to save time and utilize technical resources in other ways. Other ways include building out the front end of our application as well as the back end of our application. Without AWS, we would have to hire network/server engineers, which would take away from our overall speed of growth.

We have found the Elastic Cloud Compute service (EC2) as well as the simple storage solution (S3) to be the most valuable aspects of the solution.

We deploy our core application and our integration platform on AWS EC2 instances. These applications contain multiple containerized Python Django applications, which need to scale up and down dynamically. They also need to be secure to prevent unwanted bad actors from using our AWS compute instances for malicious activity.

Finally, we find the S3 buckets to be quite valuable. S3 allows us to securely store large customer files without fear of them being compromised, changed, lost, or corrupted.

I am not an expert in AWS, nor do I work in the dev-ops department, so I might not be the best person to ask this question. It could be made cheaper. I know we spend a lot of money each month on AWS.

We have been using AWS since the company was founded in 2017 - about five years.

We do have quite a lot of AWS deployments and clients in certain countries.

We use it for spinning up environments, using infrastructure as code. We use it for disaster recovery and high availability for creating BMs for testing. Mainly on the service side, we use it for setting up environments and spinning up environments.

The monitoring is the most valuable aspect of the product.

Technical support is available if you need it.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is okay. It's similar to what you would get with Azure. 

The interface needs a bit of work. It's not intuitive.

The solution's initial setup can be complex. 

I've been using AWS for about 15 years. It's been a very long time. 

The stability is fine. I haven't had issues with crashing or bugs or glitches. 

The solution's scalability is pretty good. These solutions are pretty well known for not being able to scale well. They behave very differently at scale. I wouldn't say it's any better or worse than Azure is; it's probably on par.

Internally, we have about 500 people using the solution right now. 

I have never used technical support myself, although it's my understanding that our team does from time to time. We do all the first line ourselves. Anything that escalates to the third line, we have contracts in place to help us get assistance.

I found the initial setup to be pretty complex. It's just getting more and more complex, with the infrastructure as CodePipelines and that sort of thing. On a scale of one to five, one being the worst and five being the best in terms of complexity, I'd say it's a three.

I have no idea what the operational side does in terms of maintenance. It's not an aspect that falls under my responsibilities. 

I don't handle the licensing side of things and therefore cannot comment on the price of the solution.

We also looked at Azure DevOps.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We use various deployments, including on-premises, public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment is dependent on the customer, the solution, and the service level agreements that we have. We use all of those models. We make our choice based on the requirement.

I'd advise potential new users to actually do a shootout between the different products based on your use case and choose the right one.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, however, the UI needs improvement first.

We use Amazon AWS as an IaaS Cloud for our e-commerce sites.

Because of the stability and scalability AWS provides, our team can now focus on how to engage and delight our customers instead of constantly being fixing production issues.

We have not had any problems at all. 

In the 4 years that we have been using  IaaS services from Amazon, we have not had any issues.

It's a great IaaS cloud. They are the leaders. No cloud provider can match Amazon right now.

Other providers are improving year over year, but Amazon is still ahead at least two years.

Working with AWS requieres your organization to invest in training your team to better use and take advantaje of all that AWS has to offer.

We have been using this solution for 4 years.

AWS provides without a doubt the most mature and stable IaaS cloud in the market.

We have thousands of customers who are going to our websites to purchase goods and it takes a matter of minutes to scale the infrastructure both horizontally or vertically.

Great services, assistance and response time from the AWS team

It depends on how complex is the architecture of the solution to be deployed, in our case because Magento is sort of "native" for AWS it has been straightforward.

We implement through a vendor team specialized implementing and managing Magento on AWS

I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

I am a software developer and I have experience with several languages and technology stacks. Amazon AWS is one of the technologies that I work with. It's integrated with the solution that we have. It's a continuous integration and deployment pipeline.

The most valuable feature is the availability, as we work in different availability zones.

It has been easy to use, and the tools included are quite friendly.

The reliability and ease of use are the benefits.

At times we find ourselves a little trapped, with the lack of customization, for what we need. That doesn't mean that the tool is lacking it means that we are trying to be more creative than the tool and the rest of the market. In cases like this, it is we who need to revise our plans.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for one year.

We are pretty happy with the stability.

The only issue that we have encountered is when Amazon had problems with one of their availability zones that impacted half of the world. We found that we were impacted as well, but it wasn't that difficult for us because we already had a solution with multiple zones. We had a minimal outage, as we were swapping from one server to another. It took less than ten minutes for us, so we were pretty pleased.

It's a scalable solution.

We have both options of vertical and horizontal scalability. Everything that we have needed so far has worked well. We have no complaints.

We are in the process of scaling up. We have an IoT solution and if we translate that to endpoints and devices that are monitored, we would have 70,000 devices, and counting, in the field. In terms of clients, there are 300 to 400, each of them with their own users.

We have contacted technical support and because we are just a small client, rather than a partner, it can take 30 minutes to get a solution. We have not had to use it much to this point, so this may not be a fair evaluation.

This solution was already in place when I started with the company. AWS was in-place and they have never switched to anything else.

Our build, or deployment, is dependent on the application, but the pipeline for submitting a new commit and making it a hot deploy would take from five to twenty minutes, depending on the solution.

For our infrastructure, the cost is approximately $25 per device, and you have to include the other tools that we have in the cloud, for a total of approximately $200,000 per year. Our tools included several databases and Kubernetes. If the price was a little bit cheaper, I would consider this solution to be a ten out of ten.

I'm not very experienced in the solution yet. I don't have a clear view of all that is offered, but with the experience that I do have, I'm pretty happy with the features and it is difficult for me to find where they are lacking.

Currently, I am switching to Redshift, which is one of their solutions that is already deployed. I can't say that I'm missing anything from their roadmap, so far.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

It has been useful for running virtual services for some of our internal applications. Some of the developers are using it for doing some kind of development work on robotics process automation or RPA.

It is quite easy to provision new virtual services for our use. The procedures are quite straightforward and simple as compared to other competitors, such as Microsoft or Huawei. This is what we are happy about with Amazon AWS.

It is pretty mature in terms of the availability of most of the infrastructure components. If you want to deploy a server on your platform, everything is already there in terms of the operating system, network components, securities, and data encryption. It is also quite scalable and stable.

Our use case is limited to virtual services and RPA development. We are not using it quite heavily, and there are not many issues or problems so far. However, it would be great if it could be integrated with more AI features and proactive monitoring. It could also have more automatic capacity expansion features. For example, when renting out some space, memory, or computing power, the service can have the capacity to expand by itself without being manually handled by us.

I have been using this solution for two to three years.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. It is easy to expand and unsubscribe. In terms of the number of users, we have ten administrators from the IT side.

We have interacted with them. They are quite responsive to our inquiries.

The initial setup was easy.

It was pretty much done by our in-house developers.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. I believe we are satisfied with the current pricing. Otherwise, we would have switched to another vendor.

I would recommend this solution. Amazon AWS cloud is pretty mature in terms of availability for most of the infrastructure components. It is a one-stop shop that gives everybody simple steps to get things done, which is great.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

Auto Scaling and CloudWatch Logs are the most valuable features. With just a few criteria to scale in/out of, you can save the life and time for DevOps.

The CloudWatch Logs feature provides many plugins, so that we are able to manage various types of logs centrally.

In the era, we used private clouds as network virtualization must be controlled by the IT division, server rooms were in the remote branches and DevOps were distributed in various areas. Now, we can use the same API and the same workflow without considering to centralize the logs.

IaaS is sometimes way too complicated to complete one task.

I have used this solution for around eight months.

So far, the VPC is sometimes not that reliable. Therefore, we have to set up a redundant VPC to make sure the connection is always available.

We do not have any scalability issues until now.

I have never used technical support.

Previously, we surveyed OpenStack. However, due to the time, budget and manpower limitations, building a private cloud is not practical in our case.

Managing IaaS was very difficult in the beginning, i.e., tons of jargon to get up and I struggled for months.

Try the Google Cloud Platform (GCP). It is yet another good choice because sometimes, what you need is just a platform and not to build a platform from the infrastructure.

When your division grows to a certain scale and you really need DevOps, then you could move either to a private/public cloud. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and money.