IBM Public Cloud Reviews

We deploy all of our developments and production environments for deploying microservices and APIs on the IBM Public Cloud.

The initial setup and the pricing are areas that need improvement.

I would like to see more support from the IBM specialists.

Support needs some improvement. Basically, you are doing it all on your own, and it's not easy.

If you want access specialists, it's always about money. You are already paying, so it shouldn't be about money. They need to speed up and start working.

The initial setup needs improvement.

It is easy to deploy what you need for the initial setup. The initial setup takes time.

Pricing is not as fair as Amazon or Azure. It needs improvement.

I would rate IBM Public Cloud a seven out of ten.

We used it for an insurance company and a banking client.

There is no installation for this product because it is a cloud product.

It could be more secure.

I have been using this solution for two months.

I don't have a tangible experience of this solution, so I can't say anything about its stability.

We have about 100 users of this solution.

I have contacted them mainly about deployment.

I have stopped using it currently, but in the future, we will need to use it again. I don't have much experience with this solution, but I would recommend it to others. 

I would rate IBM Public Cloud a five out of ten.

My primary use for IBM Cloud is to have it act as a dedicated server for my database. Other use cases include using it for telco, telecom services. I needed a dedicated server for the database. Many apps in the market actually use my database for their services, so that is why I need a dedicated, reliable server.  

The features that I have found most useful with this product are their reliability and their support.  

An improvement that I would like to see is better configuration capability. So far, our service is only large enough to demand one server. Their service and their website is okay in servicing our needs. We find it reliable and user-friendly. However, features wise, they could enhance their support interface and the report detail. I would like to know how much bandwidth I am actually using and maybe get better, more frequent report details. Doing small things like that can make the service better.  

We have been using this IBM product for four or five years.  

It is very stable, of course.  

I am not using the scalable option and I have not tried it. My AWS service is scalable because I use it for specific things and sometimes the traffic is high. If the traffic is high, they automatically scale the database size and then I pay some extra money for that. But I am not using AWS all the time because everything does not need to be scalable.  

From an internal standpoint the IBM solution is scalable. We have 15 users internally and we can scale that usage at any time.  

I think that the technical support is good. Excellent really. Anytime I need something they are dependable and willing to help me out.  

The licensing fees are straightforward and predictable.  

The advice that I would have for people considering this service would be that they should try it. If they are something like a small enterprise, they can use this IBM solution. It is very clear and easy to understand the interfaces, services, and easy to understand the pricing. They can be sure how it will work and how it will fit into their budget before they use it.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate it as a 10. It does exactly what I expect it to, it is a good service, and there are no surprises.  

We are a managed service provider and IBM Cloud is one of the products that we use to provide services for our clients. We have a large number of customers who are in different industries and some of them are moving from a traditional data center to the cloud.

There are several advantages to migrating to a cloud-based data center. Some of these are that you don't need 24/7 power or power backup units, local staff for maintenance, or to handle your own security.

There is also the important point that servers are available on-demand. For example, I may need 100 servers for a client for a short time, but after which they are no longer needed. This ability to scale up or scale down using the cloud is helpful. By contrast, in an on-premises solution, if you need more power then you have to purchase it.

One of the features that I really like about IBM Cloud is the flexibility where you can order your own hardware. Customers do not want to have a full data center but they can order virtual machines, use solutions like VMware vCenter and NSX, and they can design their own network. 

This solution is user-friendly and easy to manage.

There is not a lot of support for this solution, which is something that needs to be improved. 

We have been using IBM Cloud for a few years.

IBM Cloud is stable and our customers haven't had any issues.

This solution is very scalable. IBM took over a company called SoftLayer, which has resources across the globe. They are available in the UK, US, Australia, India, Asia, and everywhere.

There is not a lot of support for IBM Cloud. The response from them and the ETA for resolving issues is too slow, and also, the SLA is too expensive. If you want to have premium customer support then you have to pay more.

Obviously, they will still make the best effort according to the SLA. Whatever engineer becomes available will give good support but it is a very slow process.

For example, something that is a priority-one issue for you will not necessarily be of the same urgency for their support. Rather, they will go as per the SLA, which is based on how much you pay for support. If you are a gold partner then you can just pick up the phone, tell them the problem, an engineer will be assigned and they will just start troubleshooting. For most organizations, it doesn't work this way.

I have worked with AWS and Azure clouds. IBM Cloud is the cheapest of these three, and I found it to be more flexible in terms of third-party integration.

The initial setup is straightforward and not very complex. The fact that you can make your own infrastructure is the best part.

Being a network architect, I set up all of these things on my own. There are different vendors who can support you, based on your requirements.

The price of IBM Cloud is very cheap compared to competitors AWS and Azure.

The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and some costs vary between cities. For example, data centers in smaller cities will cost less. The savings in operating costs of a remote data center are passed on to the customer.

Premium support is available for an additional cost.

The suitability of this solution depends on your organizational requirements and how you want to function, as well as the policies. One example is that a lot of financial institutions do not want to migrate to the cloud for security reasons. Some organizations prefer one provider over another, such as AWS. There is no hard and fast rule that says you have to use only the IBM Cloud. The option is up to the customer.

Overall, I would stay that IBM Cloud is stable, straightforward, and is a good service. I recommend it. My main complaint is about support, which is tied to pricing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My clients' use cases are for their private data where there's concern about the data being exposed. If it is on the public cloud whether it's performance issues or issues around disaster recovery or resilience, we tend to have the data help on-prem or on the cloud and then processing done on the public cloud. 

The availability is second to none. Customer support is very good. 

In terms of performance, resiliency, and availability, it is second to none. 

The deployment can be a bit of a pain. There are a lot of packages and a lot of options and it can require complex configuration to get it right.

I have been using IBM Cloud for six years. 

It does what it says it will do. It's price competitive. The deployment is a little complex but any client that I have used it with has never had a complaint about resiliency, stability or scalability. 

We haven't had any bugs or gliches. But if you make a mistake in the setup, you will end up paying for it. 

It's easy to scale. 

The time it takes to deploy will depend on how complex the situation is. The smaller configurations can take around a day or two.

The integration is always the complex piece. 

The deployment packages should be made easier. The configuration should be easier. When you start looking at patterns in architecture, the patterns are very similar. Every client likes to feel that they're unique. If there was an easier way of deploying according to a particular architecture pattern that would be great so that you didn't have to go and configure everything from scratch every time. 

I would rate IBM Cloud a nine out of ten. The only deficiency is the deployment. 

IBM is very focused on hybrid cloud as its main strength. It is useful with other IBM products. If you want something that's out of the box and simple that you don't need to do anything complex with, IBM Cloud is too big for you. If you're looking to do any mix with anything on-prem and if all you want to do is a simple cloud deployment, it's probably too big for you. It'll be easier to do in Azure. If you want better scalability and 100% availability then go with IBM Cloud. 

In the next release, I would like to have better deployment packages. Rather than having to do the stuff from scratch, IBM has products where you fill in an online spreadsheet, you hit a button and it configures it for you. A deployment like that would put IBM Cloud ahead. 

Our primary use for IBM Cloud is checking our products, our deployment environment, and testing their dynamic/static states.

IBM Cloud supports both dynamic and static content for our applications.

The price of IBM Cloud is most valuable for us. The service is personable and gives us a good rapport. I can't say it's the best, but it was enough for our needs.

We went with this solution because we were concerned about our code and application security. We would not jeopardize platform security, so we went with the IBM Cloud product line.

I need a watch to describe the number of required improvements for the IBM Cloud service. We use the tools. It takes almost a day to configure each one of the work products.

Maybe performance enhancers and reports could be better improved. If they do so, it would be better. Of all the drawbacks I saw, this would be the biggest enhancement.

The IBM Cloud service is good and stable.

For the maintenance of IBM Cloud, we currently employ no one because we are still at the deployment stage. We have some servers for our products. When we deploy our products, we haven't started to integrate between the cloud and our servers. We just deployed the code on our servers. 

Currently, while deploying or running the tool in the cloud, the scan takes almost no time to complete. Other things we use are just reading the reports that are being generated from the tool.

I don't think we are planning to increase our usage of IBM Cloud currently. 

So far, according to my knowledge, we didn't contact technical support. We didn't order any testing from them, so I can't say much about IBM Cloud tech support.

The initial setup was somewhat complicated. We did the setup considering that we needed to have a tool to migrate to the cloud. 

We used IBM tools for some of the communications. It was not straightforward. The deployment took a couple of days.

We did our setup and installation right here. The workmen, students, and IT teams worked together to deploy them. We at least trained them first on how to make a run cycle and how to run the scans for the product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate IBM Cloud with an eight.

I am using this solution to assist with my study. We have an agreement between our university and IBM to use the IBM Cloud.

This solution is very accessible and you can deploy applications from remote locations.

This solution can be very slow, which was a big problem for us. Deploying applications took a long time.

I would like to see a more user-friendly deployment process in the next release of this solution. It was very complex.

We had some trouble with stability, but it may be better in the paid version of this solution.

Technical support for this solution is good. I did not email them when we had a problem because we were able to solve it with a phone call.

We also use Amazon Cloud.

In the past, I was using Google Cloud, Amazon, and IBM Bluemix (now IBM Cloud). I compared all of them and found that IBM Cloud was the best product.

Amazon is a little more stable than the others.

We deployed this solution ourselves.

We are using the trial version of this solution, so we have not paid anything.

There was a mix of versions in our project, with some people using the trial version and others using the paid version of this solution. I think that the full, paid version was better.

This product is very good because it is accessible in remote locations, and anyone can deploy from any place. It is very nice, and I don't think that many people know about this cloud computing system. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for the ecosystem on the platform where we collect data.

The artificial intelligence helps with the analytic data and can parse information faster than you can set it up. The analysis portion of the solution is very important to our business.

The solution needs to be more autonomous. It should let the DL go to allow for more jobs on the cloud. It could have a better interface as well.

The solution is very stable. For me, right now, it's the best on the market.

The solution is very scalable. It's one of the best on the market. We have ten to 100 people using the solution, and about 25 of them are certified, which is quite a lot. We plan on increasing usage in the future.

We've never spoken with technical support on the phone. When we reach out it's online. If I've needed to contact them, it's been about the build and the cloud service feedback. The service is always very good and very professional.

We looked at Oracle as well. We switched to IBM because IBM had a professional approach. They cared about our business and what we could do. The way they were preoccupied with our concerns as a customer, as well as a service provider, impressed us. Their response was very fast and they came up with the best solution that they could provide for the users, so that's why we switched. They also had other technology, including the IBM Watson Cloud, which was preferable to Oracle.

The initial setup was very easy. It's quite straightforward. Deployment took about 15 minutes. Everything is well organized. It does depend on the experience level of the person using it, but even if you're not professionally trained to deal with cloud you'll find it's not too complex.

We set it up ourselves. We just used the code and we did have the assistance of someone who helped a bit with the setup at the beginning. After that, it was very easy and simple. We got a lot of tutorials from the internet and a lot of material on the website that was quite extensive. These helped with the implementation.

On the production side, we are seeing a 200% ROI. It's actually stable enough now to probably bring a return on other systems as well. 

We use the private cloud version of the solution. We have Amazon as a provider.

The solution is very stable and technical assistance is very fast in their response. The service offered by IBM is highly respected, as well as the policy of the service provided. It's the best on the market for me and my organization. There are other good open-source solutions that work, but from a service and policy perspective, I would recommend IBM.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher if instead of making separate integrations, IBM just brought all of their solutions together.