AWS Lambda Reviews

In our organization, we have a huge number of users using Lambda, approximately around 100. We are using Lambda based on several considerations like costs, and scalability and it provides us with high availability and scalability in our processes.

Lambda being serverless is a great feature that is appropriate for our use cases.

Memory limitation is one of the weaknesses of AWS Lambda and as a result, we have to use several Lambda, instead of just one.

Recently, I met with an Amazon employee, who is responsible for Lambda as a product. It appears Amazon has some plans with Lambda, so I don’t have to add something to the additional features.

I have been using AWS Lambda for a couple of years.

I would rate the stability eight out of ten because of certain bugs in the solution.

 I would rate the scalability eight out of ten because we have certain limitations in terms of memory and size. I see it as a gradual shift of mindset rather than limitation, where AWS Lambda is trying to incorporate everything according to the industry standards, which is everything is domain-driven design and suppression of microservices. Some people even have issues with the User Interface (UI).

We have a special collaboration with AWS, so we have regular meetings with AWS and Amazon, to report issues and they further report it to the concerned team. We have meetings, face-to-face and evaluation meetings with them and their solution engineers.

Positive

We previously used Azure and Volvo

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I implemented the solution  by myself because I was once a tech lead. 

I think the price is okay. However, if they add more functionality, they can have better prices. In fact, they should have better and more flexible packages for clients who have greater consumption of Lambda.    

I would rate six out of ten overall for AWS Lambda and all the Lambda solutions,. Because we don’t have the solution for each of our use cases. It is not available in various aspects and sometimes, it is not suitable.

My primary use case for this solution is usually for event-driven architecture. Since it's AWS, it's cloud-based. 

I have found all of the features valuable. It's an easy and cheap solution. 

AWS Lambda could be improved by increasing the size of the payload. Also, sometimes Lambda doesn't implement well for bigger solutions. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This solution is stable. 

I would rate customer support a nine out of ten. I have made three or four service requests and those were all resolved within 24 hours. 

I didn't use a different solution before implementing Lambda. 

The installation is straightforward. There isn't really anything you need to do. If you know exactly what you want, it can be done in five minutes. 

I implemented this solution myself. 

I pay for a monthly license. The licensing options will depend on the users. There's a monthly option and a yearly option. 

Lambda is a good and cheap solution and I would recommend it to those without a huge payload. There are around twenty or thirty people using Lambda in my organization. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

AWS Lambda enables server-less architecture for seamless orchestration. We use the solution for various orchestrations. This is very useful when you would need to perform orchestrations of the different applications together. Many organisations are using this solution for web and mobile applications at scale. 

The main features of this solution are the ability to integrate multiple AWS applications or external applications very quickly and organize all of them by leveraging server-less computing power of AWS. Additionally, it is easy to use and you can run various programming languages, such as Python, Go, and Java.

There is room for improvement in user-friendliness. When comparing this solution to others it is not as user-friendly.

We have been using this solution for over five years for various server-less computing on AWS. My current employer has pioneered on this technology and serving various global clients for years. 

This solution is a serverless architecture in which you do not have to manage any infrastructure which makes it very stable.

The solution is highly scalable. 

We have plans to increase usage because most of the workload and applications are using this solution.

The technical support is managed by AWS which is good.

Azure Logic App & Function App, Google Pub-Sub etc. 

Managed by AWS

The price of the solution is reasonable and it is a pay-per-use model. It is very good for cost optimization.

I would recommend this solution to others. If you are with AWS it is better to use the serverless architecture.

I would rate AWS Lambda a nine out of ten.

The product serves as a function as a service, a serverless environment, you can say. It's a serverless environment, or, as some people call it, function as a service, FaaS.

We have been using it as a mobile backend. We have a mobile frontend, a mobile application, which uses the AWS Lambda functions running in the cloud. It serves as an API backend for a mobile application that is running in the frontend.

The solution is highly scalable.

The solution has proven itself to be stable.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We've found the cost to be very good. It would be a great option for startups due to the low pricing.

The solution is very mature.

The user-friendliness of the solution could be improved. If it was easy to run with the same function in other platforms, other environments, that would make it more portable. That would be really good. User-friendliness and portability will be the two factors that need the most improvement.

The startup time sometimes needs to be faster, so that is one area of improvement. The startup time of each function can be slow. When it works the first time, it takes a little bit of time, so there's a minor delay. That could be improved.

The support of additional languages would improve the solution.

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

The solution is pretty mature by now. It's been there for a few years with AWS and they're continuously improving it. It's pretty mature. The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is highly scalable and also very cost-efficient. You only pay for the time, the duration of time and that's in maybe seconds, microseconds. You pay very little until you have very large-scale users. It is ideal for startups who want to deploy applications on the cloud.

While internally only our developers really use the solution, the mobile application is used by thousands of users globally.

We do plan to increase usage and will be adding more functions to our application.

While something was used before, it likely wasn't serverless. 

I'm aware that Oracle and Azure have certain options available.

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

The deployment times vary. It really depends on what you need to deploy.

Our developers managed the implementation process. A consultant or outside integrator was not required. It was all handled in-house.

The solution is very cost-efficient.

We are using the latest version of the solution currently. I cannot say which version number it is. I don't know it off-hand.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with the capabilities so far.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations. This is much better than the other serverless solutions.

Primarily, I work with all my clients to provide them with solutions. We are a service company, so we work with clients to define and build applications that resolve their need for automation issues. I create the solutions, and then there is a delivery team of mine which works to deliver that solution to the client.  

The thing that I have found most valuable in Lambda is primarily the ease of developing the services we distribute. We can easily develop the solutions using any language which is available today — this includes all the primary and new-age languages.  

Secondly, because it is a cloud service technology, we do not have to worry about the infrastructure behind the solutions we provide. Everything is all on the cloud and there is no maintenance and we have to do no monitoring of the architecture. The time and expense of maintenance are taken care of by the platform itself. Those are the things that we like most about it.  

There are certain limitations to some services in Lambda which will have to be overcome over time. Primarily, I think there are two aspects of the product that are in most need of improvement.  

One is, of course, the customization. The process of customizing should be simplified.  

The other is specifically in the area of integration. The configuration requirements for the services which would be desirable to integrate with Lambda are not always as easy to utilize as they should be. For example, the opportunities we have to integrate solutions with the world outside of the cloud are not well supported. These integrations are supported well inside the cloud but some clients need to support solutions outside the cloud. If somebody has that need we should be able to deploy integrations with products and services outside the cloud as well. 

So those are the two drawbacks and potential areas for improvement area which I would like to see corrected in AWS. Those features need to be updated because the current functionality of the product is not competitive enough today with other products in the category. I think with time they have to improve and add new features or offer other ways of integrating new services.  

I have been working for more than a year now on Lambda AWS (Amazon Web Services) solutions, designing the real-time applications, services, and similar types of solutions for automated response.  

Stability-wise, Lambda needs some improvement because it has constraints that cause issues with task completion. What I mean by constraints is that there are some limitations to the number of minutes that a process can run and then execute. If the process continues to run and goes beyond that limit, it will time out. Those kinds of things are built into the nature of the product. Probably with time I think this is an area where the company will need to add new features or functionality to improve the behavior.  

Lambda definitely is scalable and to a great extent because it does not require any kind of additional infrastructure for the clients. It just is just a lot less trouble to deploy. You can extend and auto-scale to any level. So, the scalability is very good.  

Our clients are large-sized enterprise businesses so certainly the product can scale up to meet their needs.  

The support from AWS is fine. I am quite definitely satisfied with their support system.  

I would say the setup is straightforward. I think that most of the development is really straightforward in nature. The solutions have to develop based on some use-cases defined by the client organization. When these are defined, we are just meeting the needs of the organization by building the solution to do what they need. So the setup and implementation are all pretty straightforward.  

I would definitely recommend AWS Lambda. There are a lot of successful test cases both with our clients and other startups which are doing really well using Lambda as a solution.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate AWS Lambda as an eight-out-of-ten. That would be the right number at this time considering the product is lacking in some areas.  

AWS Lambda needs to improve its stability. 

I have been using the solution for a couple of months. 

I would rate AWS Lambda an eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. I would rate it around eight out of ten. 

AWS Lambda is cheap. 

I would rate the tool an eight out of ten. 

We had to deploy some serverless Node.js applications.

The solution works for small applications. It is a serverless tool that is quick to spin up. We needn’t consider anything in the bag.

I want to see support for longer applications. I need the 15-minute time-out window to improve.

I have been using the solution for about two to three years.

The tool is stable and you can rely on it for production service.

I think there were no issues with the size of the application we used, so I didn't see any noticeable scaling issues with Lambda. It's overall a good service.

The tech support is always good but it depends on the type of plan. We use the enterprise support plan which offers quick responses.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would rate the tool’s pricing a nine out of ten. The solution’s pricing works on a pay-as-you-go basis.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use AWS Lambda for jobs that we just want to offload to a cloud function. We are an educational institution, and if I want to upload an exam I generated for all my students, then I just write the script on AWS Lambda. That is, we use it for independent jobs that we can offload on their own.

I like the pay-for-what-you-use feature. This is the main reason why we use AWS Lambda. I don't have to manage servers; I just have to configure Lambda and expose it to an API gateway.

AWS Lambda's cold start needs to be improved. It has to warm up first, and so, the response time is slower.

Another challenge I've noticed is that there is a limit to the environment variables such as the 4 KB limit. Although, the advice is to use parameters or other things to store the details when the limit has exceeded the data, this adds additional intensity to the application. If the size limits for environment variables can be revealed, it would be helpful. Even if we have to pay for it, at least we would know that we are not dealing with latency. So, I would like to see the size of the environment variables increased.

I've been using AWS Lambda for one year.

It's very stable.

AWS Lambda is scalable; I don't need to worry about it. At present, we have less than 10 people using this solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. It can be done on the console, and you can use the infrastructure as the code.

The deployment time can vary from 10 minutes to an hour depending on your needs and how comfortable you are with AWS Lambda.

AWS Lambda now supports multiple languages, but find out if the language you want to use to write your jobs is supported by it. If it is supported, then you are good to go.

Because AWS Lambda is scalable and does what it's meant to do, I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.