Amazon AWS Reviews

We primarily use the solution to host our control panel for our IoT devices.

The solution has very good documentation.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward.

The solution is scalable.

The stability has been good.

We have found the technical support to be helpful and responsive. 

I cannot recall feeling there were any features missing.

There is a bit of a learning curve. That said, it's likely no different than learning any other cloud.

The pricing could be a bit lower, even though its costs are in the middle of the road.

I've used the solution for about half a year. It hasn't been 12 months yet.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite reliable. 

I would imagine the scaling is very good. It's advertised as quite scalable and everything points to that being the case. However, I have not personally attempted to scale. We're still building the application, and therefore we aren't at the point of scaling.

We have three people using the solution currently.

Technical support is very helpful and responsive. They have been good so far. We have no complaints and are quite satisfied with the support we receive.

We did not use a different solution. We chose Amazon due to its good documentation and middle-of-the-road costs.

While I wasn't a part of the initial implementation, it's my understanding that the process is very simple and straightforward. It's not an overly complex process. 

The cost is moderate. It's not overly expensive.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Amazon.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

I'd recommend the solution. It's a good choice and one we stand behind.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are very satisfied with the product so far. Likely, if the price was lower, we would rate it higher.

We use mainly use the product for the infrastructure, the service components, and the storage. 

The maturity that the solution offers is its most valuable aspect. It was one of the first solutions to market and has a long track record. It's very mature in terms of product delivery. 

It is very stable.

The scalability is great.

In terms of features, it's very feature-rich and it's got a good ecosystem from third-party vendors as well in terms of those that partner up with them for offering their services on Amazon. 

The security is good. Due to the fact that it's on the cloud, you can build your own security to meet your needs. It's enriched with great security features and capabilities. You just need to know how to run them. 

Technical support is quite helpful. 

We would appreciate it if the product was cheaper. 

We've been using the solution since 2014. 

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

Due to the fact that it is a cloud, users really do not have an issue with scalability. It can expand to meet anyone's needs. 

We have at least 200 users at this time. 

Technical support has been very good overall. they are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support.

Before Amazon, we did not use other products, however, we now also use Azure and Google. 

As a cloud service, there really isn't an installation process that's required. 

We use their subscription model.

The solution could always be cheaper. 

We have a monthly recurring cost based on usage.

As a cloud service, we are always on the latest version of the product.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten based on the feedback I've gotten from my team.

I'd recommend this service for particular use cases. However, it is important that users understand how it works. For example, it's not like you buy a server and running in a data center.

We use Amazon AWS for website hosting, application hosting, and serverless computing.

Everything is good. 

It is easy to use.

The performance is good.

It's also very economical.

The pricing is reasonable but there is always room to be better. 

If it was offered for free, it would be better.

I have been using Amazon AWS for three years.

We are using the latest version.

We have 20 people in our organization who are using Amazon AWS.

Technical support is okay.

I use Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud as well.

It's a cloud-based solution, there is no installation.

The price is quite reasonable.

With Amazon AWS, you pay as you go.

Definitely, I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We are hosting some education servers and web servers.

We have used Amazon AWS for a very large scale of server deployment. Also, we have run some tests using resources from AWS EC2. We don't have to go out investing for that resource, we just use them for a short period of time and we pay only for that usage. It has helped us scale quickly, and save a lot of money instead of buying those services.

The features with Amazon AWS that I have found most valuable are its flexibility and high availability. These are the most important and attractive points for me.

In terms of what could be improved, I also use Google Cloud GCP and AWS cannot directly use the Azure EC2 consult. They could add that feature. Direct connection to the EC2 console server would be very useful.

I am certified on AWS from the cloud provider side. 

I use the RDS, Relational Database Solution, and the EC2 technology on AWS.

I have been using it for more than four years.

Amazon AWS is quite stable. I have read a lot of reports from third parties, and they also have a robust testing methodology. And from my own experience, I can say that it's really, really very stable.

In terms of scalability, the sky is the limit. There is no limit for scalability. If you have money to spend, you get whatever resource you want.

We had some issues and we had pretty good support. They even created a special attach for us to solve our problem and they responded very quickly. If you buy the additional support, the support is really good.

The initial setup is easier now. Four years ago it was harder, but nowadays it is a lot easier, because a lot of boiler plate set ups are done for you. So you can just start using it right away, even if you are not experienced. 

Four years ago, it was not like this, but it's better now.

In terms of price, it is more expensive than other cloud providers, but it is worth it. It is not that much more, so you can go with it. It's not too bad. It's more expensive than the others, but it's bearable.

On a scale of one to ten I would rate Amazon AWS a nine.

To bring that up a bit, as I mentioned, I would like to have a direct connection to the EC2 server console. That's why I'm just not giving a 10.

For anyone interested in using Amazon AWS, I would advise them to read the online documentation. It's very clear and shows you step by step how to use the system. If you need more advanced features, you can find a lot of resources on the internet and on their website. So if you want to use a public cloud, I strongly advise using AWS.

We use this solution in our company and for our clients' companies.

I like the IAM, the directory, and the storage.

They should implement the command shell by default. As it is now, to open the console, you have to download the command application. When you compare with GCP, they have the command shell inbuilt.

It would make it more seamless for the administrator to include this. There are times where the machine is not connecting and you can't wait for the RDP because you have to create them quickly.

Building a shell directly from the console is a good solution. This is missing by default. there are ways that it can be done and integrated.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for six years.

Amazon AWS is very stable.

It is a scalable solution, but you can only scale-out. You can't scale up.

We have approximately 200 users in our company who are using it.

Technical support could be improved, they could be better. We don't get SLA with AWS.

They give us a specific time for a solution but they don't advise further. We have to check to see if the issue has been resolved. There should be an automatic email to notify us that the issue has been resolved, by default.

The need to work on proactiveness.

I also work with GCP and with Azure.

The initial setup is easy. It is not complex.

We have a team of 50 people who maintain all of our solutions. It's spread across the team to run 24/7.

The pricing is one of the best in the segment.

They have actually reduced their prices, with the exception of the MLD which has increased.

It's by design itself.

They have placed the pricing well for a reduced market.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We use this solution predominately to reduce the amount of effort we need to migrate to the cloud. 

We have had some difficulty figuring out how to monitor how many EC2 instances have been networked into our entire enterprise. We usually try to create a diagram outside of AWS. The types of information we are trying to determine are, for example, what hardware devices are interconnected, and when was the interconnection made.

It is difficult to extrapolate budgeting costs and schedules from the information gathered from the usage of the solution in our systems. We are given a large lump sum of money at the beginning of the year for our budget but it is hard to summarize costs to put down on paper for justification or projections.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

This solution is stable and reliable.

We are planning on moving more of our systems to the cloud. Currently, we have approximately 60% of our applications on the cloud.

Our developers found the installation a moderate level of difficulty, there was not anything that was complex. It is helpful to have some tutorials to follow.

The solution is on a pay-as-use pricing model. The price of the solution could always be better but it is priced competitively.

We have evaluated Lambda, and in some cases, it might be a better option than EC2. However, we have decided to go with EC2 because it is closer to a drop-in displacement which works better with our applications, for example, Spring Boot and other similar variations.

My advice to others is EC2 has its specific use case needs like other solutions, such as Lamda. If you have the need for a specific use case this solution could be the right choice. For example, it is possible to have your monolithic application on the cloud and decompose it into your microservice architecture or use it with Lambda capabilities. You can do this and have a high percentage of your application on the cloud. However, you need to be sure it is the right choice, it is something you need to be careful of.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for all modern application development and data-led processes as well as for building architecture, AWS Lambda and more scalable solutions for our clients on AWS cloud. I'm a practice partner of data analytics and AI.

This is a great cloud platform and scalability is an outstanding feature. It's very useful. 

I think the solution could be more user-friendly, like Microsoft products. They could include a lot more applications and make free resources available. I'd like to see more code application within AWS to build modern and good applications. A lot of cases we deal with need to write a lot of code in AWS and it would be helpful if there were designer functionalities.

I've been using this solution for six years. 

This is a very scalable solution. Most of the enterprises use AWS today, it's the number one cloud provider today. 

AWS technical support is good. They have a partner that provides us with technical support. It's managed either by AWS or by partner support, and it's good. 

Because the solution is on cloud, there's no real installation. You download to the cloud and login. When it comes to infrastructure positioning you need to have different teams. It requires some infrastructure support but it's fully managed by AWS. We plan to increase usage. 

Licensing options are either a monthly pay for use option or a contract option.

I would definitely recommend this solution. 

I rate this product a nine out of 10. 

We have, for example, a big analytical platform running on top of AWS. We have many Lighthouse projects in the digital space running on AWS. We have so many things running on AWS. We use it for storage services. We use it for computing services. Its use cases are really very broad.

The product is very easy to use. It's flexible.

It's the leading cloud platform in the world, and it has a very wide variety of services.

The product has a very good ecosystem of its own. 

The product has proven itself to be very stable.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support is quite helpful.

The solution could always be further improved on the commercial side of things. Amazon Web Services are not cheap. It would be ideal if it was less expensive for the customer.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. We're a good AWS customer.

The stability is very good. the performance is excellent. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. Overall, it's excellent.

The solution can scale very, very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so without too much trouble. 

Currently, I would say, the number of end-users who use applications on top of AWS is only at about 1,000.

We do have plans to continue to use the product and to expand it in the future. We will be scaling it ourselves. 

We've used technical support in the past. We've been very happy with them overall. I have no complaints. they are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. 

There is no installation or implementation per see. It's a cloud service. You simply have to sign up.

The solution can get rather pricey. It should be more reasonable. It's our main complaint about the product - the total cost of ownership is just too high.

We aren't buying licenses, we are buying cloud services. 

We are an enterprise with thousands of applications. We have really a broad mix of infrastructure. We have a technology standard list of several thousand products. We use a lot of AWS services. We're a customer and an end-user.

As a cloud-based solution, we're always using the latest version.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with it overall. 

I would recommend the product to other users and companies. 

It's a powerful infrastructure as a service solution, IaaS. It offers compute resources, storage, networking, and databases to quickly create your cloud infrastructure.

Apart from the infrastructure as a service, the AWS Lambda, which functions as the service FaaS, is really powerful. 

It's a powerful way of quickly assembling or developing applications, which can be scaled immensely and also at a fraction of the cost because you are charged per the execution time of each function. If you are writing a small function as an AWS Lambda function, then you are paying only for those milliseconds for the time at which it runs. 

It's a very cost-efficient way of running applications in the cloud rather than running an EC2-compute instance, which is charged by the hour or by the minute. You typically have to keep the EC2 instance updating all of the time. Whereas in functions, a function is invoked only when a user is calling it. Or, the front-end is calling the backend function. Lambda is very powerful and it is also typically used as a mobile backend. Essentially, it's a very strong API-based backend for mobile solutions.

It has many choices of computer options, storage options, and even database options.

It's flexible, you can run any kind of workload on the infrastructure.

One feature I would like to see is to have a better or a more user-friendly web console. 

The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly. They can make it more user-friendly, which will be good for administrators or users of AWS.

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable. It is highly reliable.

It is highly scalable. It's a very powerful platform.

In my previous organization, there were 12 people using AWS.

We have used technical support to an extent, and it's fine. We are satisfied with technical support.

I have used Azure Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and I have a bit of experience with Google Cloud as well.

You have to create an EC2 instance, which is the compute. We have to create that to get the compute platform, but you have to install your application. You have to patch the operating system and you have to upgrade your operating system.

The operating system and upwards is the customer's responsibility in an EC2 instance.

It's a straightforward installation because it's your application and your operating system just like you are on-premises, but you will do it on the cloud through a browser or through a CLI, a command-line tool.

The deployment timeline depends on how complex your application is. Because you are getting the platform from AWS as a computing platform, you have to install your application. It depends on the complexity of your application, so it varies.

Depending on how much you are using it, determines the maintenance. Typically, you will need different roles, you will need administrators who operate this environment, and if you are also developing applications, you would need developers.

The installation and deployment can be done by yourself.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis.

It's a pay-as-you-go model.

Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

We plan to continue using this solution, and I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution as real-time streaming to our data-lake. We also have microservices publishing to APIs. It's a customer 360 application. 

We also used the product for migration from on-prem Hadoop to AWS EMR.

We used to spend about $57,000 on-perm with another solution. Then we lifted and shifted to AWS. It came down in cost to about $33,000 while maintaining the same inner software with Apache Kafka. However, we then got into ECS Fargate, and that brought costs down further to about $22,000. When we removed ECS, we moved into a serverless Lambda for 45 million, and our billing is now $8000 per month. It's an amazing amount of savings.

The solution's API Gateway is very good.

The storage on offer is excellent. 

Recently they improved a lot in the analytics that they have on the backend. 

It's great that the product is completely serverless. 

The implementation for end-to-end, for Lambda serverless implementation, is excellent. I do run about 16 million messages per day with their Lambdas, for my API microservices.

The initial setup is not difficult.

We get a lot of exception errors, and we're working with AWS to figure out how to fix that. when we lift and shift . We get a lot of alerts. 

As our serverless Lambda is maintained by AWS, in a certain aspect,  we need to gain some more visibility into what is going on when problem happens with AWS serverless 

Their metadata management in AWS needs improvement. They need a centralized metadata management tool, where it can be integrated with  outside metadata tools  with the API. We really need a central metadata framework.

I've been using the solution for four years. It's been a while at this point.

The stability of the solution is very good. there are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. That said, initially, we did have a few problems, however, everything has ironed out. It's great now.

Scalability-wise, the product is very good. The Lambdas and the serverless architecture are very good on AWS. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease.

We have a lot of APIs, and we'll run them on my customer 360. There are six departments that use the product. We have about 1,000 users currently.

We've dealt with technical support in the past and have not been satisfied for the most part. Azure's technical support is much better. AWS often can't help us resolve our issues. But they brought some good consultants basing on our request and helped us . The account Manager always there when he took over this account .  

 i recommend IAAS AWS , for IPAAS ( integration as platform service) and Hybrid cloud Azure

We've also planed for  Azure. We've found Azure to be much more helpful when dealing with issues than AWS has been. I prefer them over AWS in support , application development  and integration as platform. But AWS has great products like S3 , API gateway , transit gateways , route 53 . AWS has  more OS options than AZURE and database offerings. their EMR is good with spark and python but not well supported for Scala and HBase. AWS serverless offerings are very good with out any major problems which includes ECS with fargate and EKS . But we got a good support from account manager

The initial setup is not complex. When we lifted and shifted faced lot of problems on EMR. Moved to ECS, as well as serverless Lambda, it's was that difficult then. That said, we had to think about how we run our Lambdas, and what problems we are facing or might face.

We're also facing a few problems due to the fact that we use encryption, HCM. When we initially started loading this data, batch data, a lot of Lambdas came, and our limit in HCM is only about 5,000 a minute, however, it quickly jumped up to 20,000 which made it so that we could not load, and errors came up. We had to turn to AWS to get assistance. We just ask them if we can have space over a few days for 20,000 and then they scale it back to 3,000. they helped us 

In terms of the implementation strategy, ours took about eight months. The lift and shift happened within 3 months. Then, we took another four months as we had a lot of problems with our scale-up programming due to multiple issues - for example, libraries, EMR, AWS doesn't have. We faced some problems when we had to change our code according to AWS, or we have to bring in those libraries on our own. So that's where it took time, maybe four months.

For ECS, it took about 30 days to move everything we needed to. 

We don't have a lot of staff to maintain the product. We have about eight people who are capable of doing so. For example, we have someone on infrastructure, who is an architect and we have an enterprise architecture team. I have four developers, two for API and two for Lambda, and one is a systems admin. 

Initial setup environment helped by AWS free . We were able to handle every aspect of the implementation in-house. We didn't need any consultants or integrators. We used our systems manager so that all of our deployments - including environments and keys - can be stored on our SSM. A lot was automated as well.

excellent in covid -19 situation . 

We saw a lot of cost savings when we switched over to AWS. It can really save a company a lot of money.

Azure and AWS 

I'm a user and  implementer.

The solution is on the cloud; it's always the latest version. It's constantly being updated, and we're always using the latest version.

We use both public and hybrid clouds as deployment models.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.