Amazon AWS Reviews

This solution is a good option if you are looking for cloud-based storage. Using a cloud-based solution, you can start with a basic version and scale up as needed. 

It is possible to scale up the server capacity on demand. That is a big advantage as far as a cloud system is concerned. Backup of the systems can be done easily and can be automated. There are automation tools within this solution that help us manage deployment.  

This solution could offer more security. 

We have used this solution for five years.

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We would recommend Amazon Web Services to someone who is looking for a global rollout or deployment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

I am an integrator. 

We get some courses and communications from the technology, so we update our knowledge about how to use that kind of technology for the cloud.

Cloud Management has been a valuable feature. It depends on how we meet our business challenge head-on with the cloud computing services because sometimes you find that the computing is working fine with Google, and sometimes it's Azure, and sometimes it's Amazon.

One customer is going to work with Azure, and the next year they'll change everything and work with AWS because in our environment the most sensitive data is kept in the on-premise environment the majority of the time. It's more frequent that you can find an environment that has hybrid implementation.

I think in some situations the key difference between Azure and AWS is how they support the hybrid cloud. In some scenarios, Azure will support hybrid cloud better while AWS offers direct connection. Azure provides security by offering information on the whole account where AWS security provides an easy find row. It depends on what the customer wants to have in the environment or how they want to work with that or what is the customer's budget.

Most of the issues are that because it's a hybrid environment, the configuration is restricted with the firewalls. The most common issue that they have found is generated by the person who administers these kinds of solutions.

It would be great if you could find a way to make an architect design and just click one button and put that in the cloud.

I have been using this solution for more than six years.

It's simple because the customer will get familiar with the technology. The customer has to know his company. He has to know it's a new technology and everything gets complicated if the person doesn't adapt to changes. It depends on how they approach all the adoption from this kind of multi-cloud solution.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

My advice is to read about the solution. All of the learning is logical, and you can follow it and put it in practice. I believe it's a great product and great technology.

Amazon AWS has a better portfolio. They have an impressive technology and service portfolio.

The invoicing procedure of Amazon AWS needs to be improved. It can be difficult to manage.

I have used Amazon AWS within the last 12 months.

The technical support of Amazon AWS is good.

I have used Oracle previously, and I don't see any difference between Amazon AWS and Oracle from the stability and availability point of view.

Amazon AWS is a bit more expensive than Oracle.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS to implement services for our customers, like backup systems, webpages, and customer services.

I think the AWS interface is good. It's easy to understand and use. 

It's sometimes a challenge to manage billing on this platform. It takes a lot of labor to generate billing for our customers from the service on the cloud.

I've been working with Amazon AWS for six years, almost seven.

AWS is incredibly stable.

I think that almost 1,000 people.

Amazon support is very good. 

Setting up AWS isn't complex, takes less than a week, and only requires one person. 

I rate AWS 10 out of 10. AWS is a solid product. I feel confident I can provide a good level of service to my customers using AWS. To anyone thinking about using AWS, I would suggest carefully designing your implementation. This is very important because it will impact the monthly cost of the solution. You need to think ahead and talk with your staff to find opportunities to make this more efficient. 

We are primarily using the solution for evaluation purposes.

The functionality and the UI are both very straightforward.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The stability is good.

Technical support is quick to assist.

The pricing could be better. It's a bit expensive. 

The availability could be better.

I've been using the solution for about two years.

I haven't had any issues that would bring stability into question. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I can't speak to the scaling. It's not something I've attempted. I just use it myself.

I can't say that there are plans to increase usage right now. 

Technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. They are very fast.

This is my first cloud product. I did not use something previously.

The initial implementation process is not difficult or complex. It's straightforward. It's basically having the computing power, the storage, S3, and the database.

The implementation was handled in-house. We did not use an external integrator, reseller, or consultant.

It's a costly product.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. It's below $100 a month.

I haven't done any evaluations or comparisons with other products.

We are customers.

We are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We primarily use it for our clients, for infrastructure purposes. 

The solution has been stable. 

The solution can scale well.

Implementing the solution is very simple. 

There are a lot of scripts and data forms are available. For us, it's not required as much now. I don't know what should do that could be extra.

They should offer fixed costs instead of basing it on consumption. There's a huge cost for support.

We've used the solution for two years. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable and reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have four customers as of now in AWS.

Right now, they are developing in India. more regions are coming online as they grow. 

Scalability is quite good.

Technical support has been very good. We don't have any complaints. We are satisfied with the level of support on offer.

The installation of AWS is straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. They make it pretty simple. 

If you have past experience with deploying AWS, then it shouldn't take more than a week. 

We have 15-20 team members that work across different technologies and they can handle deployment. We have a team of just over 20 that can handle maintenance. They are admins.

We can deploy the solution for our clients. We have a team that can manage the process. 

The pricing and licensing are good. It's a bit better than, for example, Azure. They have a different model for charging clients. 

Technical support costs extra. It could be cheaper.

We have customers who use the solution.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature of AWS is that you can scale it up and down as you need. The environment is a rich playground, and if you tried to do the same things on-premises that you do on AWS, it would be a lot more challenging to execute. You can open up a virtual machine on AWS, run some experiments, and be done with it. It's much easier than buying new servers, provisioning them, etc. 

Most of the companies that I've worked for deal with AWS. 

I don't know how many servers they say they have, but AWS is a highly reliable platform. I'm sure they've had outages because it's all over the news when they do, but it's stable overall.

Cloud solutions like AWS are supposed to have near-infinite scalable. That's the point. You can just keep going and make them as big or small as you need. 

AWS is like all the other cloud providers. They're all like vacuum salesmen, where they come in, and they say, "Do you want to buy this hose or this vacuum?" And you're like, "Yeah, it's not that expensive. It's a hose." And then they say, "How about these extra bags?" And you're like, "Okay. I'll buy the bags. It's not that much." Then, at the end of the day, you've bought an entire vacuum store's worth of stuff. You don't know upfront what it will cost, but they have cost calculators and other things like that.

You'll probably experience some sticker shock with AWS. You attempt to understand the cost, but you don't realize what you're paying until you get your first bill. I don't know if Amazon does that on purpose, but costs can get out of control quickly if you don't have someone who specializes in AWS cost management.

I don't even know how many microservices they have now. It seems like hundreds, so what do you do. What would you tell them to do with Aurora compared to their other stuff? There's just so much there that it's tough to get a comprehensive understanding of what you're getting into with AWS. And that's just the nature of AWS. It's a giant ecosystem. Azure is the same. I'm not familiar with GCP, but I'm sure it's the same. They do their best to make it as clean as possible from a sales perspective, but the AWS sticker shock is real.

I'm not sure about the exact costs. When I used to do stuff with Commvault and stuff, I knew the ingress and egress fees and the data cost for storage on AWS, but that was a long time ago.

I guess I would rate Amazon AWS eight out of 10. AWS works as advertised, but they're expensive if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not sure if I can knock them for not being transparent about pricing. Cloud costs are challenging. There's an entire industry popping up for managing cloud costs with consultants who can tell you how to get the most out of your AWS allocation. 

I don't have a lot of advice. If you're planning to implement a cloud solution, just pick one. I mean, if you're a Microsoft shop, it probably makes more sense to go Azure. If you're not, then I would recommend AWS. It depends on what you're looking to get out of it. 

There are references, architectures, case studies, and a million other things that would off better advice on whether to go with AWS or not. But if you're looking to go to the cloud, AWS is as good as everybody else. AWS is probably better than Azure and GCP, but that's a tricky thing to pin down. It depends on what your goals and requirements are. My best advice is to evaluate your goals before making a decision.

I hope that people take what I say about AWS with a massive grain of salt because it's like asking an ant about an elephant. What's an ant going to know about an elephant? It's just too big for any one person to know.

AWS is deployed into a public cloud. We have five lines and everything is autotomized. We are using several AWS solutions, including Containers, Pierre, Stargate, and Lambda. We have several projects in production, but I can't disclose more details because it's confidential. 

AWS is easier to implement than other solutions, and it's more reliable. 

It would be helpful for us if we could easily integrate Oracle RDS with AWS. That would work well with the solutions we have in place.

AWS is stable.

We can quickly add resources with AWS when necessary. Our company currently has 200 users working with AWS.

Amazon support could be better.

Deploying AWS is easy. The amount of time it takes depends on the application. I couldn't give a precise estimate of the number of minutes. We have four engineers to manage and maintain the solution.

We pay about $20,000 per month, and the license is all-inclusive. 

We are compared AWS with Azure and IBM Cloud, but in the end, we decided to work with AWS.

I rate Amazon AWS 10 out of 10. For me, it's perfect. AWS is effortless to configure and has high availability.