Amazon AWS Reviews

• 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 build our own service virtualization tools. We use Amazon AWS for cloud hosting. AWS has a lot of services that we use.

Everything in AWS is valuable? AWS itself is valuable in multiple ways. Whatever I use is valuable, which is the reason we use it.

It has a lot of new features that make our lives easier in terms of what we want it to do in the house.

I have been using Amazon AWS for four years.

Amazon AWS is quite stable, which is why it is used by many people.

Amazon AWS is highly scalable.

There's no tech support. AWS operates under a different model. There is no simple tech support available, as there is in other traditional methods. We have an enterprise account, so it's not like individual tickets; we have an enterprise client relationship, so it's very different.

It is easy to access them.

I've worked with a variety of service virtualization tools.we have not used anything from IBM. We don't use Azure, we use Amazon AWS. AWS as an IaaS or PaaS cloud solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, you can't give a broad overview of your setup as it depends on your use case.

There are numerous use cases, and the setup varies from complicated to very simple in some cases. As a result, I don't want to give a generic answer.

It's quite good, I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

I used Amazon AWS to create a server for our local application and integrated it for clients.

What I liked most about Amazon AWS are its services and infrastructure. They're good. It's a very user-friendly platform. Its servers are also more reliable than others.

An area for improvement would be their technical support packages. They should improve the technical support packages for users on free trial. There is a gap between the user and their technical support team. My suggestion is for them to build on their support for their free trial users.

I used Amazon AWS within the last 12 months, but not right now as I used it for my old project, when I was creating an EC2 server at that time. That was my virtual project, so I created an account and used the AWS services, and also created the server, but that project was closed, so the need was unmet.

Amazon AWS is so stable.

Amazon AWS is scalable, and I'm rating it a nine out of ten for scalability.

Installation for this solution is not complicated. It's easy to install. It's straightforward. If I were to rate my experience with the initial setup of Amazon AWS, with five being the best and one being the worst, I'm giving it a five out of five.

Amazon AWS was deployed in-house. I didn't use any integrator, reseller, or consultant.

I was working with Alibaba Cloud before I worked with Amazon AWS. Alibaba Cloud is comparatively more difficult than Amazon AWS.

I also evaluated Google Cloud and the main differences between Amazon AWS and these other products include how Amazon AWS was easy to use, user-friendly, and its infrastructure.

I've also used the server I built via Amazon AWS for our Android applications, and found the reliability and the stability of that server to really good. I can use it again next time when I'm into development. The server's always good.

I had four customers on Amazon AWS. Those customers were architects working in technology and IT companies.

I also created a server for our taxi application client as one of my projects. I have a local user.

I had three to four people for deployment and maintenance. Some were nontechnical, while some were technical, with an IT background.

Because I was on the free trial version of Amazon AWS, I didn't get to use their technical support.

I used the free trial of Amazon AWS for my clients. I used it during the testing period. I developed applications for clients, then recommended AWS servers to them for the applications.

I highly recommend this platform to others who are considering using it, because its stability is good.

We have different requirements vs other users, so I'm not in a position to recommend features, especially because I have not used all the features of Amazon AWS. I can't say that this feature is good, or that feature is bad. I can't say which features to add to the next release.

I'm rating Amazon AWS a nine out of ten and this is both from an integrator and customer perspective.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.