IBM Public Cloud Reviews

Our team creates systems that do analytics for solar parks. We develop a system that creates preemptive alerts to forecast problems before they happen, so we can tell their operations and management teams onsite what to attend to and what to look for before a problem arises. What we do is get all the data into the cloud, and we do our analysis there, then we end up with some alerts and send those alerts back to the team to tell them what to look for. These are our use cases for IBM Public Cloud.

What I like most in IBM Public Cloud is how easy it is to create serverless functions. They are called IBM functions, but in AWS, they are called Lambda functions. Those are pretty standard, and another thing I like the most is that I have fewer restrictions on the amount of data I can transfer across those functions. IBM Public Cloud is way more flexible than AWS.

I also like that IBM Public Cloud is pretty straightforward to integrate. As long as I have all the tools IBM provides you, getting everything up and running is straightforward.

I also find the solution cheap in terms of costs, so that's another thing I like about it.

In general, you have fewer options to configure in IBM Public Cloud than in AWS because Azure is another thing. This is one area for improvement in the solution.

Another area for improvement in IBM Public Cloud is getting up-to-date information on how to set up everything. It's hard to find new documentation, and you'll end up getting it from the web, but once you get it, everything in terms of setting up the solution is pretty straightforward.

What would be nice to see in the next release of IBM Public Cloud is increasing the capability of the serverless functions, for example, having the capability to run more RAM-intensive or more memory-intensive applications from the top. There are still some restrictions, but those are the same restrictions that are almost everywhere in other solutions. Those are pretty standard, but it would be great if there could be an improvement in that area.

We are IBM partners, so we've been using IBM Public Cloud for the last two years, and we're still using it.

IBM Public Cloud is a stable solution. It gives you SLA notifications all the time of what could be done, what is going to happen in the next hour regarding downtime, or anything that affects you. So far, I never noticed any issue, so I'm very happy with the solution.

IBM Public Cloud is a scalable solution, and it's straightforward, especially because we mostly use only serverless solutions.

Because my company is an IBM partner, my team gets special treatment, and the technical support for IBM Public Cloud is pretty good. I wouldn't know how the support would be if you asked people from the outside. I can say it's pretty good, but maybe it's just because of special conditions IBM has with my company.

Setting up IBM Public Cloud is pretty easy, as long as you get up-to-date documentation on how to set it up.

IBM Public Cloud is pretty cheap. They have an ongoing free tier that won't expire, so as long as your solution is small enough, you can have a test set that you can use for demos, which will cost you almost nothing.

My company uses IBM Public Cloud and AWS Cloud, but just for their basic functions, in particular, for some virtual machines and serverless functions.

I'm guessing that what I'm using is the latest version of IBM Public Cloud, not that I have much of a choice because it's the one I get from the cloud directly. If it's not the latest version of the solution, I couldn't tell otherwise.

I'm rating IBM Public Cloud an eight because it's hard to get to the right documentation, and that's the only thing that makes the solution a bit difficult. Once you know IBM Public Cloud, the rating could be a ten, but for someone new to the solution, it's an eight out of ten.

My company is a partner and reseller for IBM, but my company doesn't resell. It just integrates solutions, and IBM provides all the backend tools for the products. 

We deploy all of our developments and production environments for deploying microservices and APIs on the IBM Public Cloud.

The initial setup and the pricing are areas that need improvement.

I would like to see more support from the IBM specialists.

Support needs some improvement. Basically, you are doing it all on your own, and it's not easy.

If you want access specialists, it's always about money. You are already paying, so it shouldn't be about money. They need to speed up and start working.

The initial setup needs improvement.

It is easy to deploy what you need for the initial setup. The initial setup takes time.

Pricing is not as fair as Amazon or Azure. It needs improvement.

I would rate IBM Public Cloud a seven out of ten.

My clients' use cases are for their private data where there's concern about the data being exposed. If it is on the public cloud whether it's performance issues or issues around disaster recovery or resilience, we tend to have the data help on-prem or on the cloud and then processing done on the public cloud. 

The availability is second to none. Customer support is very good. 

In terms of performance, resiliency, and availability, it is second to none. 

The deployment can be a bit of a pain. There are a lot of packages and a lot of options and it can require complex configuration to get it right.

I have been using IBM Cloud for six years. 

It does what it says it will do. It's price competitive. The deployment is a little complex but any client that I have used it with has never had a complaint about resiliency, stability or scalability. 

We haven't had any bugs or gliches. But if you make a mistake in the setup, you will end up paying for it. 

It's easy to scale. 

The time it takes to deploy will depend on how complex the situation is. The smaller configurations can take around a day or two.

The integration is always the complex piece. 

The deployment packages should be made easier. The configuration should be easier. When you start looking at patterns in architecture, the patterns are very similar. Every client likes to feel that they're unique. If there was an easier way of deploying according to a particular architecture pattern that would be great so that you didn't have to go and configure everything from scratch every time. 

I would rate IBM Cloud a nine out of ten. The only deficiency is the deployment. 

IBM is very focused on hybrid cloud as its main strength. It is useful with other IBM products. If you want something that's out of the box and simple that you don't need to do anything complex with, IBM Cloud is too big for you. If you're looking to do any mix with anything on-prem and if all you want to do is a simple cloud deployment, it's probably too big for you. It'll be easier to do in Azure. If you want better scalability and 100% availability then go with IBM Cloud. 

In the next release, I would like to have better deployment packages. Rather than having to do the stuff from scratch, IBM has products where you fill in an online spreadsheet, you hit a button and it configures it for you. A deployment like that would put IBM Cloud ahead. 

Our primary use for IBM Cloud is checking our products, our deployment environment, and testing their dynamic/static states.

IBM Cloud supports both dynamic and static content for our applications.

The price of IBM Cloud is most valuable for us. The service is personable and gives us a good rapport. I can't say it's the best, but it was enough for our needs.

We went with this solution because we were concerned about our code and application security. We would not jeopardize platform security, so we went with the IBM Cloud product line.

I need a watch to describe the number of required improvements for the IBM Cloud service. We use the tools. It takes almost a day to configure each one of the work products.

Maybe performance enhancers and reports could be better improved. If they do so, it would be better. Of all the drawbacks I saw, this would be the biggest enhancement.

The IBM Cloud service is good and stable.

For the maintenance of IBM Cloud, we currently employ no one because we are still at the deployment stage. We have some servers for our products. When we deploy our products, we haven't started to integrate between the cloud and our servers. We just deployed the code on our servers. 

Currently, while deploying or running the tool in the cloud, the scan takes almost no time to complete. Other things we use are just reading the reports that are being generated from the tool.

I don't think we are planning to increase our usage of IBM Cloud currently. 

So far, according to my knowledge, we didn't contact technical support. We didn't order any testing from them, so I can't say much about IBM Cloud tech support.

The initial setup was somewhat complicated. We did the setup considering that we needed to have a tool to migrate to the cloud. 

We used IBM tools for some of the communications. It was not straightforward. The deployment took a couple of days.

We did our setup and installation right here. The workmen, students, and IT teams worked together to deploy them. We at least trained them first on how to make a run cycle and how to run the scans for the product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate IBM Cloud with an eight.

We primarily use this solution for the ecosystem on the platform where we collect data.

The artificial intelligence helps with the analytic data and can parse information faster than you can set it up. The analysis portion of the solution is very important to our business.

The solution needs to be more autonomous. It should let the DL go to allow for more jobs on the cloud. It could have a better interface as well.

The solution is very stable. For me, right now, it's the best on the market.

The solution is very scalable. It's one of the best on the market. We have ten to 100 people using the solution, and about 25 of them are certified, which is quite a lot. We plan on increasing usage in the future.

We've never spoken with technical support on the phone. When we reach out it's online. If I've needed to contact them, it's been about the build and the cloud service feedback. The service is always very good and very professional.

We looked at Oracle as well. We switched to IBM because IBM had a professional approach. They cared about our business and what we could do. The way they were preoccupied with our concerns as a customer, as well as a service provider, impressed us. Their response was very fast and they came up with the best solution that they could provide for the users, so that's why we switched. They also had other technology, including the IBM Watson Cloud, which was preferable to Oracle.

The initial setup was very easy. It's quite straightforward. Deployment took about 15 minutes. Everything is well organized. It does depend on the experience level of the person using it, but even if you're not professionally trained to deal with cloud you'll find it's not too complex.

We set it up ourselves. We just used the code and we did have the assistance of someone who helped a bit with the setup at the beginning. After that, it was very easy and simple. We got a lot of tutorials from the internet and a lot of material on the website that was quite extensive. These helped with the implementation.

On the production side, we are seeing a 200% ROI. It's actually stable enough now to probably bring a return on other systems as well. 

We use the private cloud version of the solution. We have Amazon as a provider.

The solution is very stable and technical assistance is very fast in their response. The service offered by IBM is highly respected, as well as the policy of the service provided. It's the best on the market for me and my organization. There are other good open-source solutions that work, but from a service and policy perspective, I would recommend IBM.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher if instead of making separate integrations, IBM just brought all of their solutions together. 

On the IBM Cloud, I mainly use their servers and their load balancer.

The availability is very good.

I've found the stability to be excellent. The performance is good.

The product can scale quite well. 

Technical support is very, very good. They are helpful and responsive.

If they continue to add more additions, I'll be very happy with it. 

The product should offer more computing, similar to Amazon. 

I've been using the solution for about a year now. It hasn't been that long. 

The stability is excellent. It's 200% stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's extremely reliable and the performance is great.

This solution scales very well. If you need to expand it, it's not a problem at all.

Currently, I'm the only one who's personally using it, to provide solutions to my clients.

Technical support has always been excellent. They are helpful and responsive. 've been very satisfied with their level of service. 

I previously used AWS. However, I have little experience with the product. However, I still occasionally use it. 

The solution is purely cloud-based, and, therefore, you don't need to worry about doing any manual or on-site installation process.

If you are an enterprise, or even just one person handling the solution for multiple clients, you will need to get a license. 

That said, you don't have to pay for licenses if you're an individual developer, but if you're handling a little more load, then you need to pay for licenses.

I'm an IBM customer and end-user. I use this product for my clients. 

I'd rate this product at a ten out of ten. I've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities so far. 

I would recommend it to all developers.

We are a solution provider and we have moved a few of our customers with simple infrastructures to the IBM Cloud.

For non-complex applications, the IBM Cloud works fine and the price is much lower than the competitors.

In Brazil, they only have one site, which is a big problem.

They do not have a very good virtual network implemented, and the VPC is the most important feature that needs to be improved.

They need to have more options for databases.

The load-balancer and out-scaling need to be improved.

The IBM Cloud is less stable than AWS, Google, and Oracle.

The local support in Brazil is good. We have a partnership with IBM and the support that we get from them is very good.

I have experience with AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google, and Oracle, and I think that IBM is the provider with the fewest number of services available. They have a long path ahead of them, in terms of services that need to be implemented on their cloud.

We had a consulting service from IBM and from the distributors, Ingram Micro, to assist with deployment.

The IBM Cloud is priced well, and much lower than offerings by the competitors.

The commercial model is different from the other providers. In order to be competitive, you have to commit to a contract for at least one year, but you pay a fixed monthly fee. This is one of the advantages because, with the competitors, the amount you pay varies every month.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

The most valuable feature of IBM Public Cloud is the AI integrations.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

I rate IBM Public Cloud a nine out of ten for stability.

IBM Public Cloud is a very scalable solution.

I rate IBM Public Cloud an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is average.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution's deployment takes approximately six weeks.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten.

The solution is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate IBM Public Cloud a seven out of ten.