Amazon CloudFront Reviews

We use the solution for content delivery and website acceleration. We use it because AWS and CloudFront are under one environment. It requires AWS configuration.

We didn't face any issues. The AWS environment was very helpful in terms of integration.

The solution could be more simplified for new users. It could be more user-friendly. Also, support needs to be improved.

I have been using Amazon CloudFront for more than a month.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is pretty scalable. It works as we expected. We are setting up this solution for a bank with 200 staff employees and more than 5000 users.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven to eight out of ten.

It is hard to get technical support from Amazon. They have launched in the Philippines around June, but it's very limited.

Neutral

We have DigitalOcean but we use AWS because it is cheap.

The initial setup is moderate in AWS but difficult in Azure.

I rate the product’s pricing a six to seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

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

Our primary use case for Amazon CloudFront is to cache content near users for faster delivery. For instance, when we need to deliver real-time reports to customers, we cache them in locations close to the users. It allows them to access the reports in a fraction of a second.

The product's most valuable feature is its ability to deliver content to users nearby. We have limited AWS regions, so accessing content directly from these regions can incur delays. However, with CloudFront, we can cache content closer to users, ensuring real-time access.

They could be expanding the number of locations available. It will help users easily access content.

We have been using Amazon CloudFront for six months.

While I have not encountered any major issues, sometimes it isn't easy to implement. However, considering these platforms are already extensively tested, any bugs encountered are usually addressed promptly. Overall, it works well. I rate the platform's stability an eight.

I rate the platform's scalability a nine out of ten.

One of my team members typically handles interactions with AWS support, and they have been able to provide satisfactory answers to our queries.

Positive

I have used Microsoft before.

The initial setup may seem difficult for first-time users, as is often with any cloud platform. However, with some work experience, navigating the screens and understanding the processes becomes easier. It takes only a few minutes or seconds to complete.

The security features provided by CloudFront have benefited our operations as we did not need to implement any additional security measures. The built-in security features were sufficient for our business requirements. I highly recommend a product if someone requires a solution for real-time access to data and content.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We used the product for one of our projects associated with online gaming.

The product is very well interconnected with other Amazon services. It is very well connected with EC2, so the integration with S3 becomes easier. It reduces latency to some extent. If all our services fall under the AWS landscape, the user experience would be much better.

A lot of caching features must be added to the solution. It only has the standard caching features. Akamai has properties that have multiple features that can be added as rules. Something similar must be added to CloudFront.

I have been using the solution for more than three years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. A team of three people was using the product in our organization.

We opted for the standard support. The support was not the best. It was satisfactory. The support people took a lot of time to answer. Though we explained our issues well, they did not understand them clearly. It might be because the support team lacked skilled people. The expensive support packages might not have such issues.

Neutral

I have worked with Akamai.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution’s price is reasonable. It is much more reasonable than Akamai.

I would recommend CloudFront to people dealing with simple projects and AWS infrastructure. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I integrate CloudFront with my AWS S3 buckets to host my frontend app, specifically my React app, on S3 and provide access via CloudFront.

The solution makes our platform fully accessible and available globally, helping us to ensure that our customers can rely on it being up and running.

The integration with the Access service and the ability to upgrade or use our own certificate are features I find very valuable. CloudFront also provides tools like CloudFormation, which enable us to write templates and provision resources on demand.

I would like to see an increase in distribution regions in Africa. There are currently only a few regions available.

I have been working with Amazon CloudFront for the past three years.

CloudFront is highly stable. I have not had any stability issues with the product.

Amazon CloudFront is quite scalable and able to adapt to our needs.

I rate the customer service a six. I have experienced communication issues, although not specifically with CloudFront.

Neutral

Before CloudFront, my projects were deployed on EC2. Prior to my position, the company used DigitalOcean but migrated to AWS for centrality of data.

The initial setup can be challenging without knowledge of CDNs, but with the right understanding, it’s quite straightforward.

I managed the deployment myself. I have automated the process using CloudFormation templates, allowing anyone to duplicate the setup using the provided codebase.

The primary ROI comes from CloudFront's stability and reliability. It effectively solves our problem of globally and securely hosting our applications.

I rate the pricing a six. Pricing is determined by usage, so there's less cost when there is less traffic.

Amazon CloudFront is a good product for hosting applications globally and securely. It offers features like geolocation restrictions and whitelisting for added security.

I've used CloudFront, as the company's CDN, to distribute content across better local servers to help the final user perform better.

The most valuable feature is the number of servers they can put your content in while being reliable. They are stable. It's a strong feature that helps distribute content close to the users.

The user interface could be improved. It's much easier to control or see financial results from similar solutions from Google.

The solution is very stable. I can only remember one or two times that the product was unstable, but overall, it is very hard for something to go wrong.

The solution is very scalable.

In the free tier, you receive very little support from Amazon. You get more support with premium support, but I believe Amazon lacks documentation. This is mainly a problem with people like us from abroad because it's not common for them to translate materials, and they are closed off from the community, so they do not offer the greatest support.

Neutral

It takes a long time to deploy the solution, but the most difficult part is deploying it nicely. The user should fine-tune the configuration to achieve the solution's full potential.

Depending on the complexity of the deployment, the number of people required varies. Just deploying the CDN on the cloud is not hard. If you have one or two good developers, they can deploy the solution themselves.

I rate Amazon CloudFront's pricing a five out of ten.

Amazon CloudFront is not the most complex application for Amazon to set up, but some complexities could be improved to get the most of the power out of this service. However, the solution works perfectly when designed well by the architect.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use the solution to expose fact files to have more latency. We expose the front end of applications using the product.

We can personalize a lot of things inside CDN.

The product should be more intuitive. It should provide better descriptions of the fields. It can improve the cache and have some customization inside cache configurations. While the product is easy to understand for a developer, it is not so easy for a DevOps engineer like me.

Support is good. Once, I wanted to increase the response time and did not understand which feature to use. So I requested support to increase the timeout. At that moment, it was intuitive because I searched the Internet and understood the use case.

Positive

The ease of setup depends upon the use cases. If you are using the most common use case, it's not difficult to set up. We can put our application in origin. We can put an S3 bucket as the origin and research and request from there. You can limit the request to be private inside the product and S3. When we need to go a little bit deep, like when we need to customize some things related to cache, the setup is not intuitive.

We do not need to maintain the product after deployment and calibration. We customize the information from our application in the product and choose the use case. We do not need to worry about maintaining the solution after that.

Cloudflare is more simple, but it is more focused on other use cases. Most companies I work with use 90% CloudFront and 10% Cloudflare.

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

Amazon CloudFront is a service that allows us to host our website or video on a domain. If we want to access a specific page on our website directly, we can create a CloudFront connection to the hosting server for our website. If we want to launch our website and then link it to documentation or other elements quickly, we can do so directly through CloudFront. Afterward, we can link our domain to the CloudFront distribution.

Amazon CloudFront is a service that dramatically accelerates the delivery of our static and dynamic web content.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed of delivery. For example, if we have HTML, CSS, PHP, images, and media files, CloudFront can deliver them quickly and reliably through its worldwide network of edge locations. This reduces latency, allowing webpages to open faster, while also providing high performance.

If the content is not stored in the Amazon CloudFront location, it will be retrieved from an origin, such as Amazon S3, a MediaPackage Channel, or an HTTP file server. For example, if the content is stored on a web server, that server can be identified as the source for the requested content. Suppose that we are hosting an image on a traditional web server, such as a PNG file. We might place the image on a website with the image name adhikary.png. This way, our users can easily navigate to the URL and see the image. When we use Amazon CloudFront, however, they may not be aware that the request is routed from one network to another. This is because the complex connections of interconnected networks that comprise the internet are hidden until the image is found.

Amazon CloudFront can improve by accurately determining the latency of a non-defined URL that the solution encounters. For example, if we have a direct connection, the solution will link to the data in a fraction of a second but if we don't have a direct connection and are using a domain name instead, it will take longer to connect. To improve this, we should consider getting a direct connection.

I have been using the solution for several months.

The stability of the product is very high, and it will not be affected by the connection of the endpoint to CSS, HTML, or CloudFront. Amazon CloudFront is an independent product and its stability is also very good.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support provides extensive support for their managed services. In most cases, we don't need much support, but if any issues arise, AWS provides quick and reliable assistance.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. I give the deployment an eight out of ten.

I believe the solution is more expensive. Amazon's pricing varies depending on the data transfer. The cost depends on how much data is transmitted from that particular CloudFront. The cost is lower if we are located in America and hosted in America.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

Navigating Amazon CloudFront is easy and provides many options. Image access management, CloudFront delivery, and the location and IP address range of the CloudFront server is all easily accessible. I find Amazon CloudFront to be particularly productive, making it a great choice for my needs. If an organization is using Amazon's cloud service it is best to use Amazon CloudFront and stay away from other solutions.

We use the product as a CDN in front of several public websites.

The platform's most valuable feature is its ability to deliver content globally, optimizing website delivery for users worldwide. Additionally, it is an inexpensive product.

I encountered challenges with seamlessly integrating different services. Specifically, integrating a WAF (Web Application Firewall) with CloudFront took a lot of work. The process required managing infrastructure, including configuring VPC (Virtual Private Cloud) settings, setting up load balancers, and connecting them to the WAF. The lack of seamless integration made the setup process more complex and required additional research to manage all the services properly.

We've been using Amazon CloudFront for about 3 months now.

The platform is stable.

The product is highly scalable, even if you use it on a large platform. It's designed to handle increased demand without errors. Additionally, if you need more power or resources, you can easily find a solution within AWS.

The initial setup was straightforward, but it required some research. For a small website, it took about one day to one and a half days to complete the setup. Without prior research, it could take up to three hours to set up once you're familiar with the process. The complexity ultimately depends on the architecture, but managing the website takes two to three hours.

Our ROI with CloudFront is quite favorable. We can deliver our services without incurring significant outbound traffic costs, as it's included in the price and quite affordable. Compared to managing several instances implemented in different locations, it proves to be much more cost-effective. The exact ROI depends on the use case. Still, for scenarios like hosting a website that requires global accessibility, it can lead to significant savings, potentially up to 50% or more compared to alternative solutions.

The product has a mid-range pricing.

The security features have helped to protect the content. It is an expensive product with valuable features. I rate it an 8.