Amazon AWS Reviews

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.

We use several tools that are part of AWS, which are onboarded to our infrastructure.

We have five or six EC2 instances that make up our AppDynamics component of the link. We are using Paperclip for restoring files, and we use other scripts as well. These are tools that we use from day-to-day.

Using AWS is really helpful for saving costs. We used to have to budget a lot for hardware costs, but now we have EC2 instances that are based on the requirements. For example, if you want one CPU then the cost is based on that, whereas if you require more, then it is automatically included.

There should be seminars and online training sessions available from AWS because a lot of people who are not using it would benefit from having the basic knowledge or basic hands-on experience. If they gain experience with it, then they will be happy to use it in the future.

Training could be in the form of more documentation or training videos. Any increase would make this solution easier to handle.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost two years.

We use AWS on a daily basis and it is really stable.

We have more than 10,000 users on AWS and we are definitely planning to increase usage. We are the MNP and we have close to one million users in our India location.

Currently, we are introducing our web support and once we need infrastructure to be installed, we will create more instances.

The technical support is really good because whenever we we need help, we just raise a ticket and we get a solution.

I know a little bit about  Azure and GCP, but I am only really familiar with AWS. From our perspective, 60% of users implement AWS.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have the guidelines and documents from AWS, so it is easy for us. AppDynamics is also supporting us for the installation of their components. 

The time required for deployment is not long. Creating an EC2 instance only takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

We no longer need a team for the installation. When we first started, they guided us, and now we have the experience that allows us to do it on our own.

AWS and its cloud platform are getting to be well known through social sites and other sources. It is definitely a product that we recommend. We have experience with it and encourage other people to use it as well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are providing a platform as a service to our customers, where we do not manage their end applications.

We do not manage their end workloads, and we do not have visibility into what applications they are running. We are just providing them with hosting services.

We pretty much like everything and we are excited about the seamless capability the EC2 service is offering.

We are mainly using VPC, EC2 instances, a bit of S3 and NAT Gateways, and NAT Instances.

The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions. It's a bit complicated to implement and to understand. It requires a lot of heavy lifting. 

I am not exactly sure if we implemented it poorly, or it is the same.

Cross-validation and logging-in are areas that need improvement.

There are many variables involved in pricing the service in AWS and overall, the pricing is a bit on the higher side. If the variable in pricing could be simplified, that will also help. Sometimes, we don't use these cost optimization tools.

I have been using Amazon AWS for six months.

We just started specifically for this engagement. 

Prior to this, I had worked on AWS in my earlier engagements for quite some time.

We haven't faced any challenges. It's seamless.

Our company is, I would say, a mid-size company. The customer for whom we are onboarding on AWS, their end-users are also from a mid-size company.

Technical support is good.

We are loving this solution so far, and it has certainly reduced the time it takes to stack up new applications. 

Also, we are using it for the first time, for this customer, and they too, are loving it. Specifically, the new application launches and testing. I think they're simply having a good time with it. 

They experiment with things and tear it off when it is not needed, so they are enjoying it.

I would certainly recommend this to others, for sure.

I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. Our experience has been great!

The initial setup was straightforward to a large extent.

We are continually migrating services, as per the client's requirement. But I think a mid-size application consisting of 10 servers can take two to three weeks to get onboarded on AWS. This is starting from discovery, planning, migration, and then going live.

I think it should be less expensive. There are many variables involved in pricing, such as data transfer, and several other things. 

You have to be very precise, and really detailed, and account for each and every thing. Only then can you do an estimation of how much the application hosting will cost you. You can't afford to be missing a single piece.

There are a lot of pieces that get embedded into costing for each service. So, it's complicated, and I really wish it should have been simpler.

Most of our managed services are in Amazon Web Services. We also use Kubernetes clusters for some of the cases. 

We are basically on the cloud, and most of our clients prefer AWS as the cloud provider. Most of the solutions have been on-premises, which basically involves migration to AWS. We also started using a hybrid model because some of the clients prefer a hybrid cloud kind of approach, where they have an on-premises model and something on the cloud so that they can just connect their data centers to the public cloud. 

We are mostly using EC2 compute and other resources. Most of our managed services are in AWS, which some of our clients prefer.

User personalization and robotic process automation services need to be mature enough. More APIs are required for robotic process automation services. Azure is more mature in terms of user personalization and robotic process automation services. 

The document processing can also be better. Whenever we want to do any kind of document management, I try to do OCR, ICR, etc. The functionality in AWS has to be more like that.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost two and a half years.

It is a stable product. We do not have any issues with its stability. Most of the customers come for 99% to 99.95% availability. 

AWS has a very highly scalable model. Because the availability requirements are high, we typically go for additional redundancy. It is easily possible to support different operating models in AWS.

Their technical support is very good and fast. Whenever you need something to be fixed, they are able to do it completely.

It is comparatively very easy. We have our own R&D environment where we do our work. When we want to actually do something for the client, we just move the work that we have done in our R&D environment into the client's cloud. It is very easy to use all the services.

Its price is kind of okay. When we do a migration from on-premises to the cloud, we typically use the lift-and-shift model. Based on the studies that we have done, cost savings are definitely there when we moved from on-premises to the cloud.

I feel that you shouldn't basically stick with any particular cloud provider. If you really want to take the benefits of a multi-cloud environment, you should not build your applications focused on any particular cloud provider. You should build something that is generic, and whenever required, you should be able to switch to any kind of cloud provider. People tend to actually focus on one particular cloud provider, and they start building their applications to cater to that provider. You shouldn't do that. You should reap the benefits of all cloud providers. This is what we also say to our clients.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten. It is really good as compared to the other cloud providers such as Google Cloud.

We use the solution for cloud service and analytics. 

The tool's most valuable features are AWS Security Hub and AWS GuardDuty.

There are plenty of areas for improvement. For example, the ease of tagging could be improved. The tool could integrate AI tools to identify better and manage costs. Calculating the cost of some services could be more straightforward.

I have been working with the product for six to seven years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate Amazon AWS' scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 200-300 users.                   

The quality of technical support depends on how much you pay. 

Neutral

We used GCP before and switched to Amazon AWS because it was cost-effective. 

I rate Amazon AWS' deployment ease as five out of ten. It can take a few weeks to complete. 

The deployment process was completed in-house.

The solution's ROI is good. 

I rate the tool's pricing a six to seven out of ten. 

I recommend the solution to others because of our smooth experience. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I used Amazon AWS for a financial company.

Amazon AWS has a good Redshift database. 

Amazon AWS is a very poor product for students and difficult find out solutions. Microsoft Azure is a better solution.

I have used Amazon AWS within the past 12 months.

I have used Microsoft Azure.

I have implemented Amazon with the Redshift database for the ETL components.

I find Amazon AWS very expensive compare to Microsoft Azure.

I have evaluated Google cloud.

I rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We like the that, within the public subnet of this solution, a new instance of the tool is launched when it detects an issue, in order to prevent interruptions in performance.

We would like the system documentation for configuring this solution to be improved, in order to provide better process clarity.

Similarly, we would like more templates to be available to download for performance-oriented architecture, so that we can re-purpose them for our environment.

We have been working with this solution for the last five years.

We have found this to be a stable solution.

This solution allows for easy auto-scaling.

The initial setup for this solution is straightforward.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS to store and run cloud-based applications in the cloud, such as databases, virtual machines, and dockers.

The price could be reduced.

It is difficult to hand over legacy applications when migrating them to the cloud. It's a challenge.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for approximately eight years. It's been a long time.

We are working with the latest version.

We have no issues with the stability of Amazon AWS.

Amazon AWS is a scalable solution.

We are providing applications at a global level. This solution is used by 1,000 users.

The technical support is good.

The installation can be challenging when migrating legacy applications to the cloud.

Most of the time, I require the assistance of some technicians.

It is very expensive, you have to be very cautious.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We are doing our own custom development, which is run on AWS.

We have done a lot of work using Amazon AWS.

All of our deployments are hosted on the Amazon AWS Cloud. Because many of our client requirements are on AWS, we have our own AWS development environment, and then we use GitLab to migrate it to the client environment.

We write a lot of Lambda functions for various services, as well as serverless functions.

We use Amazon S3 to store a large amount of data and images.

We also use Amazon DynamoDB Database for many of our developments.

Many of these features are already available on AWS. We're just getting started, and we're still learning a lot.

The performance is good.

We would like to see if AWS includes any inbuilt automation. Also, we are very interested in AWS's AI/ML features, as well as IoT, AR, and VR.

We have been using Amazon AWS for the last couple of years.

The stability of Amazon AWS is good. We have not had any issues.

It is easy to scale.

In our company, we have approximately 20 people who are using Amazon AWS, on a daily basis.

We have a few issues in the beginning during the setup, but we were able to resolve them ourselves.

We are satisfied with the technical support.

The development is primarily on Python, Node.JS, and Java technologies.

The initial setup was quite complex at first, but once we got the hang of it, it was simple.

It took a week to complete the installation from scratch.

Because it is a cloud product, it does not require a lot of maintenance. We have CloudWatch and some alerts set up, which is how we manage everything, including utilization.

We completed the installation internally.

The pricing is fair. We don't have any issues with the pricing.

I was evaluating different ways to incorporate RPA.

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it. 

It's very scalable and serverless. We are only charged for the functions that we use. This includes Lambda, which is a nice feature, in my opinion.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.