Amazon CloudFront Reviews

We use Amazon CloudFront to host web services. It helps us protect websites and provides an easy deployment for AWS WAF.

The product’s most valuable feature is the availability of the websites.

The product could support any network load balancer. At present, we can use only Amazon’s load balancer application. It will help us manage hosting multiple web services or websites easily.

We have been using Amazon CloudFront for two to three years. At present, we use the latest version.

We have 30 to 40 admins executing using Amazon CloudFront in our organization. We plan to increase the usage as we migrate from a third-party WAF to AWS WAF.

The technical support services are good.

We migrated from EC2 as an individual website towards Amazon CloudFront. The migration was straightforward as it is available in AWS itself. It took around two weeks for 150 websites. We had a team of 50-60 executives to work on the deployment.

Amazon CloudFront costs less than third-party services. Going for third-party vendors may cost more, require some skills, and take time to integrate.

I rate Amazon CloudFront a seven out of ten.

I use the solution for CDN.

We use the platform to deliver files and media across the world.

The speed and usability of the solution are valuable. It's part of AWS. It’s pretty useful.

The tool must provide regional control. It must provide features to allow only one region to reach the content via CDN.

I have been using the solution for six years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The tool is very easy to set up.

I have seen a 100% return on investment in the product.

The product could improve its price. People using the product must pay attention to what they are setting up. The cost can greatly increase if they do not take care of it.

Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

I use this solution for image loading. 

The image loading process is easy and cost-effective too. 

Improvements are needed as per customer requirements.

I have been using Amazon CloudFront for four years. 

The cloud automation is created within minutes.

I have been using Amazon CloudFront to create and then set up a signed URL, which is something I need for my project.

Feature-wise, I like the solution's signed URL because it provides security for me.

I don't know yet what can be improved in the solution. I don't have time to dig into it.

During the setup phase, there were some hiccups in terms of security, the user role, and the permissions. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

I have been using Amazon CloudFront for one of my recent projects. I am a customer of the solution.

For scalability, considering AWS, I can say for the Docker container, I can launch multiple instances.

I haven't contacted customer support yet. I'd use online pages, YouTube, and all kinds of sources, but I won't prefer calling customer service directly.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I think everything in the solution looks fine to me because I've been back and forth between Azure and Amazon's UIs. So, I think I'm okay.

Since I haven't explored the solution yet, I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We use it for media content delivery to different geographical locations. We have its latest version.

It is stable.

Its price is really high and can be improved. From the technology perspective, they should have some multi-platform integration. When you are configuring something on top of it, it is geoblocking. There are some limitations for the IP addresses, which other solutions don't have.

They should have more Edge locations so that CloudFront can be used much more. If they can make it a little bit cheaper and better than other networks, we will be able to use it more. 

They don't have a lot of PoPs in Asia-Pacific. That's one of the reasons why there is some latency. They can reduce this latency by adding multiple PoPs. If we are concentrating on markets, such as Vietnam, the Philippines, where we don't have PoPs, we have to ride on other providers.

We started to use it six months ago.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

I've never interacted with them. Normally, with the help of the documentation, you can manage it on your own.

It took about half an hour to install it. Its installation is not a big thing, but setting up rules and everything else takes a few hours. 

We are a consultancy company. We used to do the installation, and we also used to have a consultancy with other companies. 

For its deployment and maintenance, three to four guys are required. One architect is there, and then there is one manager and two engineers.

Its price is really on the high side. It should be cheaper in general.

I would definitely recommend this product. We like Amazon products. 

I would rate Amazon CloudFront a nine out of 10.

The solution has many features that are comprehensive.

I have utilized certain characteristics and invested effort in reading the documentation, which proved to be challenging.

I have used Amazon CloudFront within the last 12 months.

The implementation was a bit difficult due to the documentation used. It would be beneficial to have a categorization in the documentation that aids understanding based on user expertise levels, such as beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Such a division would greatly assist startups like ours.

I rate Amazon CloudFront a seven out of ten.