Amazon AWS Reviews

There are different services, approximately 150 of them, this solution can provide. There are a few services I most commonly use. I am using it for the virtual servers, Lightsail which are lightweight virtual servers, and a simple storage service which is called S3.

Some of the valuable features I have found to be the virtual server is easy to understand, a secure environment, and AWS has a fast community for finding solutions to problems you might be facing.

I have been using the solution for three years.

We have approximately 15 users using the solution in my organization.

The scalability of the solution all depends on the services that you are using. It is very easy to scale in the cloud if you want to launch multiple servers and if you want to vertically or horizontally scale up the servers. It can support many environments such as Windows and Linux.

The support is fast at responding and resolving issues.

I have used Microsoft Azure and DigitalOcean previously.

The solution is an on-demand service. There is a monthly billing requirement which is for the virtual machines we currently use.

The solution is expensive compared to other providers because you need many of the services and it can add up fast.

I recommend this solution to others and I plan to use the solution in the future.

I rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. 

We use this solution for everything. It's our infrastructure. You can have long-term or short-term storage. You can have elastic servers, analytical AI, machine learning services, and API services.

It's a flexible solution.

The interface is relatively complex. It's not complex when you compare it to Azure, but with some other competitors, it is a little complex.

The interface could be simplified. It's an area that needs improvement, as well as the price.

I have been using this solution for five years.

We are using the latest version. It's always kept up-to-date by Amazon.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. Everyone in our organization is using this solution. We have 100 users.

We are not sure if we are going to continue using this product. We may move to Azure or GCP. We haven't made that decision.

You have support but not very much. It's all do-it-yourself and you figure it out for the most part.

You have outside consulting firms that provide the support. 

We use Azure, just for backups.

There is nothing to install, it's cloud. It's easy.

The prices are a bit high. But they are the first ones on the market to really do this and they have a monopoly on it.

Depending on what you get, you will have to pay for a license. For example, if you get SQL Server, which is a Microsoft product, you need to pay for a license. If you get other products, you may have to get a license. They will provide that or they will sell it to you.

In some instances, it may be, that you bring your own licenses.

Azure has better services for some aspects, and Google GCP has obviously got some competing products. I think each provider has its benefits, advantages, and disadvantages.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We mainly use AWS for migrating onto the cloud or for analytic services and machine learning. 

I like many features, like the recently released useful analytics features. There are many from the data analytics or database side.

The price could be better. Support for data analytics could be better. I don't see much support for data analytics. They have a lot of support in Azure, but I don't see a lot of innovation on the data analytics side in AWS.

I have been dealing with Amazon AWS for the last two years.

AWS is a stable and flexible solution.

AWS is a scalable product.

Technical support is customer-friendly and knowledgeable.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. They have very good documentation, and if you can follow the script, you can do it. I was trying to do it with the Datacom script, and I was able to make services like VPC and EC2 in the database cloud seamlessly.

The prices are somewhat on the higher side. It would help if they can bring it down, especially for the sporting segment and for on-demand instances.

I would recommend Amazon AWS to potential customers.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon AWS a nine.

We use Amazon AWS as an IaaS Cloud for our e-commerce sites.

Because of the stability and scalability AWS provides, our team can now focus on how to engage and delight our customers instead of constantly being fixing production issues.

We have not had any problems at all. 

In the 4 years that we have been using  IaaS services from Amazon, we have not had any issues.

It's a great IaaS cloud. They are the leaders. No cloud provider can match Amazon right now.

Other providers are improving year over year, but Amazon is still ahead at least two years.

Working with AWS requieres your organization to invest in training your team to better use and take advantaje of all that AWS has to offer.

We have been using this solution for 4 years.

AWS provides without a doubt the most mature and stable IaaS cloud in the market.

We have thousands of customers who are going to our websites to purchase goods and it takes a matter of minutes to scale the infrastructure both horizontally or vertically.

Great services, assistance and response time from the AWS team

It depends on how complex is the architecture of the solution to be deployed, in our case because Magento is sort of "native" for AWS it has been straightforward.

We implement through a vendor team specialized implementing and managing Magento on AWS

I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

We host the service for customer products. Those services are utilized by different product lines, which can be used on AWS.

One of the features offered is scalability on demand.

It's user-friendly.

There are some areas that are not great. For example, with some Microsoft technologies such as .NET, you will have a difficult time deploying it on AWS. It works very well with open-source solutions like Java, but not with .NET technologies.

I would like to see more alerts added to the system. Preemptive alerts would be very good. It is something that happens and you have to do a lot of configuration at that time, which can be complex.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It's stable and a pretty robust solution.

It's a scalable solution that features scalability on demand, which is working perfectly fine.

We change the core on demand. We can increase the capacity on demand.

We have 10,000 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We have dedicated support. Once we have deployed it, support comes as part of the service because it is incorporated with the solution.

We get all of the support that we need.

The initial setup was definitely complex, but not because of AWS. It is complex because we need to upgrade to be compatible with AWS, which is related to the product and not AWS. The setup of AWS is straightforward.

We deployed it in a cluster way. Initially, it took a week to set everything up.

The first time it took longer, then became straightforward. It only takes a couple of hours now.

Licensing can be purchased on a yearly basis, which is an auto-renewal. We also have an on-demand on-pay purchase.

If, for example, we have provisions for other things and we have a three-peak season then we add more core, more hardware for the on-premises machines. During those periods it is on-demand but the rest of the time it is licensed with a yearly subscription.

The pricing is reasonable.

I would recommend this solution but there are some areas that need improvement. It doesn't integrate well with some technologies and preemptive alerts would be very helpful.

I am happy with this solution, and I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS together with MuleSoft's CloudHub, because CloudHub is an extension of Amazon VPC. As part of that, when we set up the infrastructure and everything, we will be interacting with Amazon products. And with big customers, we have data in the private cloud and within that private cloud we have the MuleSoft CloudHub which is connected through the organization's private cloud to a specific geographical AWS public cloud. Regarding security, we also have a number of layers there, too.

As an example, we have seen approximately 300 ETFs developed for different areas, e.g. for United Arab Emirates and other customers. And the internal customers are also using AWS. All in all, there are approximately 10,000+ users who are using it, and things are going pretty well.

The reason I like AWS is that they have a large market share and a large presence. When it comes to our use case, a big positive is that MuleSoft and AWS are working together very well. So instead of competing against each other, they're meshing together.

There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all.

One thing is that sometimes it becomes a problem when troubleshooting our tools because when you have some things local and some things remote on a foreign server, it can get complicated. We find that sometimes it's a challenge to gather the necessary information from logs and such because you need the proper agreement to capture those details. 

In the future, I would like to see Amazon move more into local clouds, by capturing more of the small market. Nowadays, spending a lot of money is not on the list of priorities for many companies, especially considering what's going on in the world. We want to leverage whatever amount is available and still get all the benefits of new AWS cloud offerings.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a couple of years now. 

The infrastructure of AWS is very stable.

AWS is very scalable. 

I've never worked with technical support personally because we have a lot of network engineers to handle that. 

When it comes to pricing, not all applications require that much performance. That's the reason why other cloud markets are also catching up, because the two predominantly high-performance platforms, AWS and GCP, are almost the same.

Looking at the primary market for AWS, I see that there's a lot of customers who have only mid-level performance requirements, because you will have all these normal applications such as online auction websites, gaming applications, voice applications, and so on. These are not, for example, large monitoring applications, financial independents, or brick and mortar companies. So AWS caters to about 40% of the market when it comes to general applications.

As it happens, in many cases, you simply don't need the high-performance offerings from AWS, nor the innovative products from Google Cloud Platform, which can come with large price tags.

Overall, AWS is pretty good and I can definitely recommend it because it's a proven product. When you're solving big problems, you want — first and foremost — proven infrastructure, technology, tools, and mechanisms. Then slowly, you'll be able to remove dependencies by moving to others as needed. So for project initiation and everything, you get to rely on something which is rock solid and proven in the industry with a long track record.

I know AWS can be an expensive option, but it doesn't have to be out of budget if you choose the appropriate level of product for your performance requirements. They can provide high-performance computing resources, while at the same time catering to the mid-level market with lower performance offerings. 

Previously, in the initial days of AWS, back in 2005/2006, there were some concerns about security and such things, but nowadays there is not much to worry about because a lot of those concerns have been taken care of. Recently, there has been another shift in attitude towards them, because not everybody is a big fan of public cloud because of what is happening in the world with respect to data privacy and everything.

Regardless, the three big names of Microsoft, Google, and AWS are really grabbing the market, and IBM is also catching up well. Because of the data privacy concerns, however, I do see some customization in European countries who are interested in interacting with the cloud market at a more local level.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We have a financial services application that's a very broad purpose API set. There are rest APIs for executing financial transactions and maintaining financial data. We also have a series of applications built on top of that.

Every aspect of the product is excellent. We have no complaints.

The reporting aspects of the solution are excellent. 

The documentation that is on offer is very good.

The initial setup isn't too complex. A company shouldn't have any problems implementing the solution.

The stability is very, very reliable.

The payment structure is very good.

The scalability is excellent. There aren't really any limitations

The security right now needs improvement. It's not bad, per se. It's just that there's always room for improvement in security.

I'd love to see guarding duties enhanced.

The pricing could be a bit better. It's something that can always be improved upon.

I've been using the solution for years. It's been a while.

The stability is tremendous. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's extremely reliable. The performance is excellent.

The scaling is phenomenal. We use a lot of auto-scaling. It's really fantastic. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

In our organization, we have 15 users of the product.

It is very seldom that we have had to contact technical support. That said, when we have, it's been very responsive. We are quite satisfied with the level of service provided. It's been very good overall.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not too complex. A company that would like to implement it themselves shouldn't have any problems doing so.

The solution is set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's very convenient.

The pricing could always be better, but it's pretty darn good. We're looking into some options for some pricing improvements through some Amazon partners.

There are not any additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

We did look at other clouds, however, ultimately, we chose AWS. We've been extremely happy with it.

We are just a customer and end-user.

I've been an enormous fan of AWS. It does exactly what I need it to do. It would be hard to convince me to use anything else.

I would recommend other potential users to absolutely do it. It cannot be beaten. I'll never run a data center again.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We're very happy with the product overall.

We primarily use the solution for POCs, different experiments, or IoT devices.

The flexibility of the solution is excellent.

The ease of use is great. You can bring something up very easily and tear it back down just as easily. 

Our first system is about to be released. It's our flagship and it's going really well.

The solution scales up extremely well.

They're spinning up and going faster. Anything and everything would you ask for in terms of your feedback they take back and build it and the next thing you know the feature you wanted is available.

The product has a lot of new functionality.

There's always room for improvement, however, they're building out new products. 

The problem with AWS is you have to keep up with the technology. If you don't stay up to date with the technology and its latest changes then you won't know what to use in your infrastructure. For example, as soon as you finish building one thing, then they've already updated to something new. They're always continually updating, rebranding, and rebuilding. 

They tend to oversell before a product is ready.

The solution needs to have more security features continuously added to it.

It would be ideal if they could continue to build a more hybrid collaborative solution - something that allows users to be on-prem, on cloud, or wherever they need to be to build. I'm looking for more AWS to Microsoft (or AWS to Linux) authentication solutions.

There are a lot of management requirements. You need to manage every aspect surrounding the solution, and it can sometimes be a lot.

I've been using the solution for ten years. We've used it over the last 12 months. We have a lot of experience with the solution.

Every system has bugs and glitches, however, for the most part, I haven't had any problems with it. In maybe out of 10 years, I might've seen servers fail three times in my life. Their durability is almost perfect. The stability is excellent. You can rely on their product.

The solution scales up very well. You can easily expand to however big you like. There doesn't seem to be much of a limit. It's very easy to do so as well.

If you scale something up and if you already have your scripts, your JSON, your LAN, and scripts running, and it sees the joint unit, then it brings it right back down. For example, it only uses what you need. If you build in it according to AWS's best practices, then you have a lean mean machine. If you're using their best practices, you'll be fine. 

We are using the solution more for POC purposes, and therefore there are only three people on it currently.

I would them a nine out of ten as a rating. However, the problem we have is not with AWS. Rather, we don't allow them to touch our infrastructure. We've got a lot of security issues and protocols. It's not an AWS issue, it's the way the corporation is built, and that's due to the fact that what we do is highly sensitive.

We would need to ask for specific professional services if we did run into issues.

I have experience with Microsoft as well. 

The difference is that Microsoft is everybody's house and everybody's corporation. AWS is more for if you want to do something new. If you want to just test something new and if you don't have the money, if you just want to learn, you can do something for almost nothing. You can just spin up something and just spin it back down and pay zero. They're moving into what they call this Self-Service Arena now, so then that way you can start building infrastructure. For example, your developers or your designers can actually go in and have a space that they can play in. That's one of the problems that people have with development. People need spaces, where they can go in and build stuff to try.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward.

The pricing can be very difficult to determine due to the fact that there is so much selection.

We are an AWS customer.

We're using the latest version of the solution. It's always updated, as it's on the cloud and is constantly the latest.

I'd recommend the solution to others. We've been pretty happy with it in general.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten due to the fact that they're very flexible. They can be overzealous and challenging at times, however, they really believe religiously in their product, and you can go find many people that know how to use AWS.