Amazon QuickSight Reviews

I use Amazon QuickSight for a user portal where I need to display client data. When I started using QuickSight, I had to create a visual connection with the data source and share it with the client. 

Now, I use the embedded QuickSight feature, allowing clients to see the dashboard within the product when they log in. This setup is for a call center solution to identify fake calls using machine learning algorithms.

The best part about Amazon QuickSight is the filtration capability. If I want to see the data of a particular client, I can filter that data through the QuickSight dashboard. This feature is very easy and helpful for visualizing data and makes my clients happy. 

Additionally, Amazon QuickSight is very easy to set up, taking about three to four hours with an intuitive data connector for data sources.

One area for improvement is the cost, as it's a bit expensive. The caching mechanism also charges too much if I need to cache any data. Sometimes it takes time to display data, suggesting a need for enhancement in data visualization speed. 

Additionally, the role-level security is challenging to implement, and it could be improved to allow access control per department more easily.

I have been working with Amazon QuickSight for the last three years.

In the beginning, there were issues when I started using QuickSight, such as difficulties with embedding the dashboard into my product, but those have been resolved.

I believe Amazon QuickSight is scalable.

In the early stages, when embedding the dashboard was difficult, I raised a concern, and support helped resolve my issue promptly. I would rate the tech support at nine plus out of ten.

Positive

Before Amazon QuickSight, I used Tableau and Microsoft BI.

The initial setup of Amazon QuickSight is very straightforward. I had to assign policies to users, connect with data sources via the data connector, and then create visualizations. It allows connection to various data sources such as NoSQL, SQL, or CloudWatch logs and takes about three to four hours to set up.

Whatever I pay for Amazon QuickSight, I get back, so I am not worried about ROI.

Amazon QuickSight charges $250 per user, which becomes expensive when managing multiple departments. However, this cost is offset by the advantages it provides.

I have previously used Tableau and Microsoft BI.

I recommend QuickSight if you are using AWS and have everything deployed on AWS. It is easy to set up. Even a single person can configure it in three to four hours. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate QuickSight as a ten.

I am creating multiple dashboards. I have created more than one hundred dashboards in QuickSight for various use cases across all the products in our company.

QuickSight offers a very cost-effective reader account model based on session-based costing, making it easy for us to provision accounts for our employees. Additionally, QuickSight is entirely cloud-based, simplifying the access, creation, and provisioning process compared to Power BI. 

The speed at which QuickSight renders data enhances the efficiency, ensuring users do not lose interest due to delays. The range of calculated fields available is very beneficial for data analysis. 

Overall, QuickSight makes it easy to provision, create, and publish dashboards.

QuickSight needs to add more visuals similar to what Power BI offers. I have noticed that many drill-down visuals and other visual options available in Power BI are missing in QuickSight.

I have been using QuickSight for almost six years.

QuickSight's dashboarding platform is quite stable, which is beneficial for any organization.

The scalability of QuickSight is high, and it adapts well to our needs. However, it is unrealistic to expect one single visual to handle thousands of petabytes of data. Within our current expectations, QuickSight has performed well.

The support system depends on the representative you get; sometimes, the support is excellent, while other times, it is below average. Overall, support is good.

Positive

QuickSight was the first reporting platform that I have used. I did look at Power BI, but it seemed unnecessarily complicated to me.

The setup process was straightforward, taking just a few clicks.

QuickSight is considered cost-effective. As far as I know, QuickSight is cheaper compared to other solutions like Power BI.

I evaluated Power BI, but it did not appeal to me due to its complexity.

I would advise users to keep track of their budget, the types of users they have, and whether they're more author or reader-based. 

Also, the choice of reporting solution should consider the data size and the existing environment, such as whether they're using AWS. 

I rate QuickSight a nine out of ten.

Amazon QuickSight is a business intelligence tool that gives the user all kinds of reports, like real-time and historical reporting. It allows you to showcase various reports and analytics and even trigger some limited actions. It's primarily designed for advisors or analysts.

I've used it extensively for Amazon Connect reporting.  There are many tools that can integrate with Amazon Connect for reporting, but since Amazon Connect lacks native customization features, one way to customize reporting is to use QuickSight. 

Compared to other reporting tools, it is very effective but does require an understanding of certain concepts in QuickSight. This understanding is crucial for creating dimensions, changing metrics, and visualizing reports. If someone has a thorough knowledge of QuickSight, it is a very good tool that allows for significant customization. 

Recently, with AI integrations coming into play, QuickSight has gained a lot of new features, particularly in its integration with Amazon services and the ability to write queries using simple English. This is a fantastic feature that has helped me create and deploy reports more quickly.

One area is that integrating data from different sources into QuickSight can be a bit tricky, especially with Amazon Connect. To get data flowing, you need to use two additional services and configure them correctly. 

The setup isn't straightforward and can be time-consuming.

Secondly, while QuickSight is a BI tool, it lacks features to suggest actions or integrate with other systems to turn it into more than just a data display tool.

Additionally, from a user perspective, QuickSight is easy to use if you have analytics experience. For beginners, it takes more time to understand the mechanics, visualizations, and overall functionality. 

Lastly, integration with Amazon Connect can be unstable. Changes on the Amazon Connect side can impact datasets in QuickSight, causing reporting failures. These are some of the drawbacks that needs improvement. 

I have been using it for three years. 

In previous deployments, Amazon Connect was used by all the supervisors and some of the C-suite executives who were actually using Connect. All those supervisors, C-suite people, and even team leaders in the contact centers used QuickSight for their day-to-day operations. 

They relied on it to understand their dashboards, check wallboards, and monitor how graphs showcase the different performances of the agents and even the voicebots at times. 

In a call center with around 300 total, I have seen 20  to 25+ QuickSight users, which includes C-suite people as well, like the head of the call center and the head of business operations.

It's affordable compared to other long-term contractor business tools available in the market. There are cost advantages with QuickSight, but it needs to be configured properly to realize these savings and get the most out of the platform at a lesser cost.

For first-time users, it's crucial to understand the use case first. Why do we need to use QuickSight? It's like a Lego block, capable of constructing a lot. So, determine whether QuickSight is really necessary for your use case. 

If QuickSight is chosen, take advantage of Amazon's documentation to learn about its strengths and capabilities. Understand the different dimensions, metrics, visualizations it supports, and the various fields and objects. Learn how it integrates with data sources. Knowing these aspects well will help you launch your projects faster and more easily.

Based on my personal experience with the usage and UI, I would rate it around a five out of ten. There are many developments that could still be made in QuickSight, especially in the way it integrates.

I use Amazon QuickSight to develop dashboards for the various lines of business that we cater to at the outsourcing company where I work. These dashboards help us visualize and analyze data specific to each line of business, making it easier to track performance, identify trends, and make informed decisions. QuickSight's flexibility and ease of use make it a valuable tool for creating customized data visualizations for our diverse client base.

Amazon QuickSight has several strong points. It is notably fast in handling large data set refreshes, making it efficient for data analysis. It is also user-friendly, especially for first-time users, due to its simplicity.

The product lacks some advanced customization features compared to tools like Power BI, which can be a drawback for more complex data visualization needs.

I have been using Amazon QuickSight for two years.

I would rate the stability of the product as a six out of ten. We frequently encounter bugs with Amazon QuickSight.

I would rate the scalability of the product as an eight out of ten. We have approximately 200 users of Amazon QuickSight at our company. 

I have used Amazon technical support. They are sometimes helpful, but there are times when they can't solve the issues. It varies depending on the problem. I would rate the support as a six out of ten.

Neutral

Yes, before using Amazon QuickSight, I worked with other products, including Power BI and Tableau. We switched to Amazon QuickSight since it was more affordable. Compared to Amazon QuickSight, Power BI offers a broader range of visualization options and more flexible formatting capabilities. Power BI provides more visual choices, easier page formatting with specific control options, and the ability to use bookmarks to enhance the dashboard's appeal. One area where Amazon QuickSight could improve is its formatting features for dashboards. For small-scale businesses, Amazon QuickSight is cost-effective. However, for larger datasets, tools like Power BI and Tableau may be more efficient, even if they require additional AWS services. QuickSight's pay-per-view model is suitable for smaller data, but your choice depends on your data size and requirements.

It is entirely web-based, so there is no need for any installations and it takes less than an hour to set it up. Our team of ten developers maintains the product.

For end-users, the price seems to be based on a per-view model, meaning you pay for the number of views of the dashboard. As for developers, it might involve an annual cost of around $36, although I am not exactly sure. In addition to licensing costs, there can be extra expenses for using Amazon QuickSight. To maximize its functionality, you might need to integrate it with other AWS services like S3 and SMS. QuickSight alone may not be fully usable, so additional subscriptions to these services could be necessary to make it more effective.

I wouldn't strongly recommend Amazon QuickSight to other users. If they have the budget, it is better to explore other BI tools. However, if a company is looking to cut costs and is already using AWS for its infrastructure, then QuickSight might be a viable option. Overall, I would rate Amazon QuickSight at a six out of ten. While it has room for improvement, the fact that they are continuously adding new features every month is promising, so the rating might increase in the future.

We run as a part of our agriculture platform, a lot of web apps and mobile apps. Amazon QuickSight is used in the backend for analytics and data analysis.

We are using Amazon QuickSight as we see at least 30% time savings.

Amazon QuickSight is a SaaS platform where we can run queries and get analytics without installing any software. It works well with the AWS ecosystem.

The cost of queries is very high. Improvements in drill-down ability and evolving it as an OLAP tool would help more.

We have been using it for about one year.

Amazon QuickSight has been stable in the past year.

Our dataset is not very large, so we haven't had scalability issues yet.

Support is satisfactory. Amazon support deserves ten points out of ten.

Positive

For log management, we use an in-house solution and not any third-party product right now.

No installation is required for Amazon QuickSight. Amazon maintains the service.

We see at least 30% time savings.

Competition pricing is high for query processing, however, the Data Lake cost is nominal as it is on top of S3.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I am a consultant and an Amazon partner and reseller advising clients about which solution they should seriously focus on. For the current project, I did a comparison on PeerSpot to show them substantial information about which of the platforms is the one which they should prefer because each of them has different strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons.

The solution is very quick to turn around and integrate. You can do everything well on the QuickSight platform.

The platform’s pricing is a bit hard because even though you get a 30-day trial, you have a standard edition that's only in-house. The product is quite expensive because the price is too close to QlikView's prices but it does not ring as well as QlikView.

I am no professional analytics person, but as a developer and consultant, I think the quality of the product can be improved and be made more feature rich as well. They could do some predictive analytics, and have their graphics be a bit better to make it look nicer.

I also think they should focus on QuickSight as a separate line of business so they can generate better revenue. I have seen many companies bought over that just rest on their laurels and do not show substantial improvement in terms of features or performance like a company that has to fight tooth and nail for their sales.

I have been using Amazon QuickSight for around three months now.

The performance of the solution is quite alright and straightforward. Although QuickSight is at the testing level for us, the solution is responsive enough.

The solution is moderately stable. However, I am not very convinced about the stability since I have yet to see a huge implementation of the solution, for over 5,000 viewers for instance.

I have not contacted the support team yet, and neither have I faced any problems with the solution so far. However, I have some local Amazon staff contacts whom I can reach out to if there's any issue.

I worked with QlikView as a part of their evaluation committee about a decade ago.

From what I see so far, it's very easy to start up. Amazon QuickSight is relatively easy to configure, but I think they could optimize it a bit more. The product is in a transition as they're integrating with AWS, so the authentication part gets a bit messy.

There are no additional license fees apart from the standard licensing fees. However, the standard license is meant only for internal users and not for free readers. That's a problem, because to have free viewers, you need to escalate up to the enterprise license which ideally should not be the case.

In addition to QuickSight, I am also evaluating other options like Tableau and QlikView as these solutions are very well evaluated.

My advice is to look at your use case, look at your complexities, the sophistication of reporting that you need, and the end results of what you want. Do you have a simple reporting need? Do you get straightforward reporting requests? Or do you need something more professional and higher-end? Based on these parameters, make the decision. I would rate the solution a six and a half out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for basic reporting, charts, and graphs.

There is no installation required. It is browser-based. 

We like that you can look at groups, users, and like that we can take advantage of column-level and row-level restrictions.

The SpiceDB capacity is pretty large compared to other contemporary options, including competitive software like Power BI, Tableau, etc. It has better performance with respect to large data sets.

The solution is simple to implement. 

Managers can build a dashboard, and over a period of time, they can build very complex dashboards as well. 

It is easy to learn. There is a decent level of documentation already available around QuickSight. There are multiple YouTube channels, videos, and tutorials available, and there is a QuickSight community from where you can get help. This helps users work with the basic functionality of QuickSight.

The solution is stable.

It is quite scalable. 

I just want a few more features to be added. We'd like an increase in the number of visuals, and we find the graphs are still very restricted.

We need reporting around telementary use and QuickSight users, including which user is opening which dashboard, at what time, and for how long he is using the dashboard. They built reader access based on the session. However, they don't report it anywhere.

I was expecting this very basic thing, yet it has not been rolled out. In order to know which user is opening which dashboard and at what time, I have to basically deep dive into the CloudTrail log. Even there, it's not a very detailed log. It does not give you an idea about the session or session duration. It only gives you an idea about whether a dashboard was loaded or not. 

Currently, auto-reporting is limited to some 30 times a day. As it is, if you want to set a data set to get it refreshed every half an hour, you cannot achieve it. We would like to have more auto-reporting.

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

Stability-wise, it is decent. It's reliable. There are no bigs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable. 

There are data sets where I have millions of records, and the size of the data set is beyond 100 GB as well.

We have more than 500 users on the solution currently.

There is a lot of documentation available that can help users learn the solution and troubleshoot.

On multiple occasions, I have had to check with the AWS support regarding QuickSight, and the support is pretty decent around it.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution.

I did work with Power BI. Power BI had too many visuals. It's pretty mature, however. Power BI is a very old reporting tool. It has great functionality, yet it is costlier. Still, it is not very scalable as it is limited to 10 GB only. Whereas in QuickSight, you can have beyond 10 GB easily. A few data sets we have are beyond 110 GB.

The solution is online; you don't have to install anything. It's user-friendly so it is easy to get started. If you have users on your AWS account, you can just enable QuickSight access for them.

User management is very easy. 

The ROI a company might se depends on how they are using it. It's a service. If you are not using it efficiently, then obviously, the ROI would be lower.

It's not a one-time purchase.

It's like they build you on three fronts. One is the SpiceDB capacity that you buy. Another is the author account you create in QuickSight and the reader's account. For an author account and SpiceDB capacity, there is a fixed charge. For the author, it's $24 per month. For SpiceDB capacity, it's somewhere at around $0.30 per GB per month. For the reader account, there is no charge. It's pay per session, and I don't know the price per session. 

You need to be aware of how you have it set up. Even though we have, let's say, 50 authors, for example, out of those 50 authors, only two or three authors were creating dashboards. The rest of the authors were sitting idle. At that point, we got billed unnecessarily. Later on, we figured it out, and we removed the unnecessary authors.

We're a customer and end-user.

One big lesson that I have learned is that first, you identify what kind of reporting you want to do. Then, just go and check whether that kind of reporting is already available in QuickSight or not. If yes, then you have to think about the cost. It's pretty much in your face, and you can precalculate it without any issue, and then you have to just play around with a couple of average users.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Amazon QuickSight for our internal reporting.

A valuable feature of Amazon QuickSight is that it's a cloud-native service provided by AWS. As all platforms within my company run on AWS, that's the leverage of Amazon QuickSight.

Amazon QuickSight is also easy to use, and I find the native connectors from AWS valuable as well.

Right now, you can't use Amazon QuickSight on other cloud providers, so I'd like it to have availability on other cloud providers. This is an area for improvement in the product.

What I'd like to see in Amazon QuickSight in the future is a distributed centralized system where I can manage all reports in one place, and for Amazon QuickSight to become reporting as a service.

I've been using Amazon QuickSight for almost two years now.

Amazon QuickSight is a stable product because it's an AWS native, so it has all the data reconciliation taken care of by AWS. You won't need to worry about stability in Amazon QuickSight.

Amazon QuickSight is a scalable product.

I haven't contacted the technical support team for Amazon QuickSight at this point.

As our platform is on AWS, we decided to go with the native services of AWS which includes Amazon QuickSight.

Setting up Amazon QuickSight was so easy because Amazon provided complete documentation on how to do it.

You can deploy Amazon QuickSight within hours if you're quite familiar with the product, so it all depends on your experience and hands-on knowledge of AWS.

The implementation for Amazon QuickSight was done in-house. I even did some installations myself.

The Amazon QuickSight licensing model my company's on is pay-as-you-go, but I wouldn't be able to give the figures because that's handled by the finance department.

I'm an enterprise architect, and I work for a service desk company, so within the company, people use many other tools for day-to-day activities, such as tools for data ignitions, data orchestrations, data migration, big data, platform management, etc.

Currently, I'm using Amazon QuickSight for semantic layers. There's no specific version for the solution because it's cloud-based and it's managed by Amazon.

My advice, if you're looking to implement Amazon QuickSight, is that if your reporting is too slow and you're using an AWS platform, I'd recommend Amazon QuickSight. If you're reporting with multiple data sources coming from different clouds, then you should go with a different tool.

My rating for Amazon QuickSight depends on the data sources I have, the number of reports I'm going to build, the number of users that require reporting, and the cost. For my current environment, Amazon QuickSight is the best, though it won't be the best for everybody. I'm rating it based on my requirements, and because it meets my requirements, so my rating for it is nine out of ten. It's the perfect solution for my company currently.

My company has a partnership with Amazon.