Amazon EC2 Reviews

I mainly use EC2 for hosting our application as well as some of the user data caching mechanism and mailing services.

EC2 could be improved with easier migration.

I've been using EC2 for around eighteen months.

I'm satisfied with the stability of EC2.

EC2 is scalable.

Amazon's technical support is great, we have no issues with it.

The initial setup wa straightforward and took around two weeks before configuration.

EC2 is secure and stable, and we have no complaints about it on AWS. However, Microsoft is more helpful with our go-to-market strategy, which motivates us to use Azure more than EC2. I would rate EC2 as ten out of ten.

We use the solution to host our backend servers.

The most valuable feature is autoscaling.

I would like the ability to connect SMS to EC2 using the VPC endpoint. Currently in the autoscaling process if we have multiple issues we are not able to connect some of the VPC through the SMS.

I have used the solution for two years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution has an autoscaling feature making it very scalable.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. We follow an internal document for deployment and it takes around 15 minutes to implement.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We are using a pay-as-you-go model.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We require two people for deployment and maintenance.

I recommend the solution to others.

We used it for one of the supply chain products.

Its ease of use is valuable.

Its price can be reduced. I don't see any other area for improvement.

I've been using Amazon EC2 for a couple of years.

It's stable.

It's scalable. In our organization, almost all people are using it. There are about 1,000 people. We have plans to increase its usage.

I've used their technical support, and I am satisfied with their support.

It's worth the investment.

It's expensive, and it could be cheaper.

I'd recommend Amazon EC2 to others. I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

I installed the Windows server using EC2, and I set up some product programs. 

The product is easy to use.

It can scale up.

The product is easy to set up. 

There is no need to have physical space to set up a server in. 

If the solution was cheaper, if the price was less, it would be better. 

I've used the solution for three or four years. 

It is quite a stable, reliable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales very well. People can expand easily.

I'm not sure how many people use the solution. 

I've never contacted technical support. Other colleagues may have; however, I haven't.

We only ever used an on-premises solution. We've never used anything cloud-related. 

The setup is very easy. It's not overly difficult. 

I'm part of the setup and support team. 

We'd like the solution to be cheaper. 

We pay a monthly fee for licensing. I'd rate the pricing five out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We're primarily using the solution for deploying our application.

We like that the cloud features are manageable. We don't need to do anything to manage them.

We don't have to worry about scalability issues or maintenance or security. It's all taken care of.

It's a powerful product, and we can do everything in just a few clicks. 

They could try to improve everything incrementally. They're working on improvements all the time. It would be ideal if they could continue to refine the product so there were fewer and fewer things customers would have to worry about. They could improve their own people so that things like security continue to get better and better. 

They could improve their images. They're working on doing that now. 

The solution is pretty expensive.

I've been using the solution in my current project. It's been more than six months. 

It's a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze it is reliable. 

Most of the cases are using Amazon EC2 in our production deployment, so maybe most of the people are using Amazon EC2 with other features for containers. There are about 90 people on the product right now.

I've never dealt with support. If someone needs to reach out to support, it would be my supervisor, not me. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful they would be. 

We go right to Amazon and create a machine. It takes ten to 20 minutes, so the process is pretty fast in terms of setting up. 

The cost varies from machine to machine. When we create a machine, they estimate how much it will cost. It is more expensive than other products.

We're an Amazon partner. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm on. 

If a new user wants to use Amazon EC2 for their professional work or their deployments, then they need to think about the cost. The cost of the cloud is a bit higher compared to other things. They need to also consider the settings and functionality in Amazon EC2. They really need to look at their use case and scenario. However, it is something worth trying for testing purposes.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's made out life easier. We don't have to worry about scalability or maintenance any longer. It also offers good load balancing and other kinds of features. 

Our company provides customers with business solutions for APIs, data warehousing, and process automation. 

We have many clients and a hybrid model. Certain customers prefer on-premises and the rest run the solution from the cloud.  

The most important aspects are that the solution is scalable and easy to manage.

Amazon provides great services. 

The initial setup could be easier because many keys are required for access. A more concise or shorter cycle for setup is desired. 

I have been using the solution for six months. 

The solution is definitely stable. 

The solution is definitely scalable because it is in the cloud. That is the benefit of moving to cloud-based solutions. 

We have not needed technical support. 

The initial setup is definitely complex. 

We implement the solution for customers. We have a skilled team so deployments are pretty fast with no challenges. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We typically use the solution for the web server.

The solution can scale. It's very easy.

It offers excellent value.

The product is easy and quick to set up.

We have found it to be stable and reliable.

The support could be more responsive.

I’ve used the solution for four years. It's been a while. 

It’s a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn’t crash or freeze. It is reliable.

The solution is scalable.

We have at least 20 people on the solution currently.

Technical support is better if the customer signs up for the support package. If they do not have a support package, getting help takes longer.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The deployment typically takes about two days. It does not take long. It can be handled by one department. We run it 24/7 and have it at about five financial institutions.

We handled the initial setup in-house. We did not need any outside assistance.

The cost of the product is reasonable. It’s not overly expensive.

We are encouraging our customers to go to the cloud. It’s aligned with our business.

I would recommend the solution. I’d rate it eight out of ten.

We use EC2 for different kinds of websites that can be hosted, and for other directories. 

I've found this to be a user-friendly solution and I intend to explore it further because I haven't had that much experience with it. 

The first implementation we did was complex. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The first deployment was very complicated, but over time it became easier. 
You have to understand the logic. The initial deployment took around two hours but after that we were able to deploy more quickly. It's preferable to use an integrator if you're in a production environment with many customers. 

This is not an expensive solution. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10.