IBM Public Cloud Reviews

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.

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.

There are multiple valuable features.

The documentation could be improved. Many things are available with the solution, but the documentation is not up to par. It will be challenging to implement if you do not have any experience.

We have been using this solution for more than four years.

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. Because it is a cloud and up to the requirements, it can scale up and down. We have more than 18 customers. We have multiple customers because we are also in the IT industry, and our customers use different solutions in the same cloud.

The technical support is okay, and I rate it an eight out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward and not complex. I rate the complexity a four out of ten.

The licensing is monthly, but I do not have specifics about the cost.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would recommend others choose IBM Public Cloud. It's straightforward, has a good environment and is cost-effective. Comparatively, IBM is cheaper than AWS or Azure.

On the IBM Cloud, I mainly use their servers and their load balancer.

The availability is very good.

I've found the stability to be excellent. The performance is good.

The product can scale quite well. 

Technical support is very, very good. They are helpful and responsive.

If they continue to add more additions, I'll be very happy with it. 

The product should offer more computing, similar to Amazon. 

I've been using the solution for about a year now. It hasn't been that long. 

The stability is excellent. It's 200% stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's extremely reliable and the performance is great.

This solution scales very well. If you need to expand it, it's not a problem at all.

Currently, I'm the only one who's personally using it, to provide solutions to my clients.

Technical support has always been excellent. They are helpful and responsive. 've been very satisfied with their level of service. 

I previously used AWS. However, I have little experience with the product. However, I still occasionally use it. 

The solution is purely cloud-based, and, therefore, you don't need to worry about doing any manual or on-site installation process.

If you are an enterprise, or even just one person handling the solution for multiple clients, you will need to get a license. 

That said, you don't have to pay for licenses if you're an individual developer, but if you're handling a little more load, then you need to pay for licenses.

I'm an IBM customer and end-user. I use this product for my clients. 

I'd rate this product at a ten out of ten. I've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities so far. 

I would recommend it to all developers.

We are a solution provider and we have moved a few of our customers with simple infrastructures to the IBM Cloud.

For non-complex applications, the IBM Cloud works fine and the price is much lower than the competitors.

In Brazil, they only have one site, which is a big problem.

They do not have a very good virtual network implemented, and the VPC is the most important feature that needs to be improved.

They need to have more options for databases.

The load-balancer and out-scaling need to be improved.

The IBM Cloud is less stable than AWS, Google, and Oracle.

The local support in Brazil is good. We have a partnership with IBM and the support that we get from them is very good.

I have experience with AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google, and Oracle, and I think that IBM is the provider with the fewest number of services available. They have a long path ahead of them, in terms of services that need to be implemented on their cloud.

We had a consulting service from IBM and from the distributors, Ingram Micro, to assist with deployment.

The IBM Cloud is priced well, and much lower than offerings by the competitors.

The commercial model is different from the other providers. In order to be competitive, you have to commit to a contract for at least one year, but you pay a fixed monthly fee. This is one of the advantages because, with the competitors, the amount you pay varies every month.

I would rate this solution a six 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 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.