I have recommended it to our friends and colleagues in various settings, such as webcasts and meetings. Some people are unfamiliar with the solution, especially those heavily invested in Microsoft solutions, who might find more savings with Microsoft's specific licensing models. However, I believe AWS Savings Plans isn't truly competitive in that regard. For instance, running SQL or Microsoft servers on AWS is more expensive than using a dedicated server. This is a concern raised by CIOs who inquire about Azure because it can be more cost-effective in certain scenarios, particularly with Microsoft Hypervisors. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Chief Technology Officer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2021-08-19T18:01:29Z
Aug 19, 2021
There's nothing called "version". Basically, when you go to the AWS Console and you say you want to have Savings Plans there is someone who comes to you and they calculate. They already calculate everything for you. For example, let's say, you're using 50 servers. The Savings Plans only apply to the servers and basically, that's it. They will say, okay, your run rate is X. They do it over a 30 day period. Then they say, okay, you're not ready for $39 an hour. We recommend you do a $75 an hour. They do all the work for you. Once you actually sign-on, then you have different ways to execute it. It's part of AWS itself. It can only work within AWS. You cannot use this one for anything else. It's not a standalone product. I'd recommend the solution. It's a no-brainer, basically, it does all the work for you and gives you the optimum solution you have to accommodate your company even within future variabilities and changes you may do. You can easily adjust the savings versus risk. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.
I have recommended it to our friends and colleagues in various settings, such as webcasts and meetings. Some people are unfamiliar with the solution, especially those heavily invested in Microsoft solutions, who might find more savings with Microsoft's specific licensing models. However, I believe AWS Savings Plans isn't truly competitive in that regard. For instance, running SQL or Microsoft servers on AWS is more expensive than using a dedicated server. This is a concern raised by CIOs who inquire about Azure because it can be more cost-effective in certain scenarios, particularly with Microsoft Hypervisors. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.
The solution is low maintenance. I rate AWS Savings Plans an eight out of ten.
There's nothing called "version". Basically, when you go to the AWS Console and you say you want to have Savings Plans there is someone who comes to you and they calculate. They already calculate everything for you. For example, let's say, you're using 50 servers. The Savings Plans only apply to the servers and basically, that's it. They will say, okay, your run rate is X. They do it over a 30 day period. Then they say, okay, you're not ready for $39 an hour. We recommend you do a $75 an hour. They do all the work for you. Once you actually sign-on, then you have different ways to execute it. It's part of AWS itself. It can only work within AWS. You cannot use this one for anything else. It's not a standalone product. I'd recommend the solution. It's a no-brainer, basically, it does all the work for you and gives you the optimum solution you have to accommodate your company even within future variabilities and changes you may do. You can easily adjust the savings versus risk. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.