Amazon AWS Reviews

We use this solution to deploy our products.

Within our company, there are at least five people using this solution. Usually, they are technical people — some software developers and a couple of infrastructure managers.

Whether we decide to increase our usage with this solution depends on our business development.

It allows us to deploy a production environment using Oracle Database, an API integrator, or by using our development tools. 

It's easy to manage. We can use a wide range of technologies with AWS.

It's very easy to configure and to use the platform, but we would like to be notified about our consumption. The consumption is a critical point for us because we are not always using the platform, but sometimes we receive high charges — high amounts of money for services that we didn't even use during that month, for instance.

I would like to receive some alerts when my consumption is getting out of the normal range.

I have been using Amazon AWS for roughly two years.

It's pretty stable. We haven't had any problems with the platform. Overall, I think it's quite optimized.

Scalability-wise, haven't had any issues. We work with small to medium-sized solutions so we haven't really needed to test the limits.

We haven't really had to contact technical support. The documentation is very complete and easy to understand. 

We tried using a Google cloud platform, but we had some configuration problems with some programs like WordPress. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. I wasn't involved in the deployment, but I believe it took less than four hours.

The price could be lower. Currently, we spend between $300 to $1,000 dollars a month to use this solution. We try to avoid using a license if we can.

I would recommend AWS to other interested companies. It's a very stable platform. It's easy to use and you don't have to be an expert to deploy your first project. Obviously, you'll need to make use of some advanced features, but in that case, support is always available. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. 

It is on the public cloud and we are using it for multiple purposes, including data storage and production.

The main feature that I like the most is the variety of solutions that it provides. It provides some analysis, business information and more. It provides a wide variety of services.

One area that could be improved is in data management. They could improve on the data side. For example, I see others with better cloud services and larger data computing capabilities.

We have been using Amazon AWS around four or five years now. 

We use it as a customer. 

I think the scalability on the computer side is good, not too much of a challenge. It is sometimes on the database side where we encounter challenges on the scalability. Sometimes it is not easy to scale beyond that point and we get a scalability error on the computer.

We have around 10 people working on it who do the maintenance, automation, and monitoring.

I would say support is average.

A lot of times I would prefer a better turnaround time in terms of the response we're getting, it should be faster. Often we have to wait a long time before the problem is solved. So it is generally a very poor product resolution.

My initial setup was quite straightforward.

I implemented it myself with one other person.

I would say to somebody who is moving to the cloud that it is very easy to start with. At the same time it is also important to make sure they have a very strong partner or a very strong team in-house.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Amazon AWS an eight on product and technology. But overall I would rate them seven if I include services and support.

Our primary use case is for cloud storage.

There is less work for the DBAs. Everything is handled in AWS itself.

We don't have issues with stability or scalability.

We manage support issues, we don't depend on others for technical support.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

In an RDS environment, we only get the CPU utilization and this thing. The growth rate and free space increases. Getting the CPU utilization is 99% or 90% sometimes.

We don't know whether to increase server capacity or alert notifications. We don't know which hard disc to purchase or what the next recommended CPU is. There should be an indicator. We would like to have more guidance. 

The experience with Amazon AWS is error-free. That was also, of course, something that I really appreciate. That means it's really well-tested and, as published or as declared. So it works as-is. I think the interfaces are really quite usable and something that I think is user friendly.

I'm just bugged by the charges that I'm not really able to manage. If there is so much little stuff, that I enabled from time to time, then I get lost. And then I tend to forget about that. It would be better if there was a corresponding notification as well. I would like to see a notification indicating you have not used this instance. You might want to turn it off so as not to incur the cost or something like that. But because most of my usage is charged to my credit card. It's disappointing and frustrating at times. If they could provide some kind of entry point. Something similar to WordPress where small businesses could have an easy way to come up with a site that could behosted immediately.

My access to Amazon AWS is not so deep. I just set up VPCs and clusters or running an instance

I would say I'm quite satisfied. They're very pleasant to talk to and very helpful.

I would say that the Microsoft Azure interface is a lot slicker. But the last time I use it was around 2018. So comparing the interfaces in the dashboard views I think the Azure has the edge.

The initial setup was a little bit challenging because understandably it also tends to protect the user in terms of the security, both the user and the system. So if I understand and appreciate that level of complexity in setting how to access it, setting up the identities, and then once you get through it, I think the interfaces are really quite usable and something that I think is user friendly.

I would certainly recommend Amazon AWS. It's very useful because you can easily try out your compute requirements, whatever storage or whatever other services that you may want. I would rate Amazon AWS at an eight on a scale of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is to migrate our customers into the cloud, integrating all of their applications.

In my previous organization, we moved some customers from on-premises to the cloud, and they are happy with the change.

The most valuable feature is that it is simple. We don't use complex services for our small business customers.

When it was only Amazon AWS in the market, no one was concerned about the pricing. However, now that there are so many competitors, there is more comparison for cloud service providers. They should look into reducing the price of this solution to stay competitive. It would be a benefit.

The current trend is multi-cloud. They can launch the Oracle service in Azure, and we expect that this should be possible in Amazon AWS as well. 

I would like to see better integration between Oracle and AWS.

I have been using Amazon AWS for two years.

Amazon AWS is stable and we have not faced any issues.

It's a scalable solution.

We have not used technical support. We provide that to our customers.

The initial setup is easy. 

Deployment is not a problem for us because we have experience. For new people, they are a bit worried about new features, until they develop a routine.

The Oracle licensing is higher than it is with Amazon AWS.

The deployment varies, as some of our customers would like the hybrid cloud while others want a public cloud.

I have recommended this product to our customers and will continue to do so.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a solution provider and we use this solution to host applications for our customers. Their use cases are related to legal and advisory matters.

The most valuable features are load balancers, databases, and S3 buckets.

I have found some problems related to the database.

The price of this solution could be reduced to make it more competitive.

There are some limitations for certain applications that happen regionally and it is an issue for us. If we work with an application that is set up in New York, for example, then it has to be able to work in Pakistan.

I have been using Amazon AWS for between six and eight months.

We have not experienced any issues in terms of stability.

Scalability is not a problem. We are currently extending our use of Amazon AWS and have acquired a partnership with them. With this, we are creating a cloud department for which we will offer Amazon Web Services.

I did not have to call technical support.

Our deployment took between five and ten months.

I find that Amazon AWS is expensive.

I recently evaluated the Oracle Cloud Platform, and I find that Amazon is more expensive.

My advice to anybody who is researching AWS is to consider their budget. If the budget is available then it is a good choice, whereas, for those who want to spend less, I would suggest using Oracle instead.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is an end-to-end cloud solution and design.

As a service vendor, we have helped clients to achieve faster "go to market" on their products, and have provided highly flexible cost-effective system management solutions.

The most valuable features of this solution are Compute, Security, Database, Media, Management, and Governance.

This solution would be improved with the inclusion of hybrid Kubernetes management.

Our primary use case for this solution is commercial cloud computing, analytics, and storage.

We have seen an improvement in our infrastructure, as the code makes it very easy to deploy quickly to AWS.

The features that we have found most valuable are IAM, KMS, and Security Groups for customizable security. Cloud formation for well-defined blueprints is also useful.

An easier way to determine estimated costs quickly would be helpful.