Amazon AWS Reviews

It has been useful for running virtual services for some of our internal applications. Some of the developers are using it for doing some kind of development work on robotics process automation or RPA.

It is quite easy to provision new virtual services for our use. The procedures are quite straightforward and simple as compared to other competitors, such as Microsoft or Huawei. This is what we are happy about with Amazon AWS.

It is pretty mature in terms of the availability of most of the infrastructure components. If you want to deploy a server on your platform, everything is already there in terms of the operating system, network components, securities, and data encryption. It is also quite scalable and stable.

Our use case is limited to virtual services and RPA development. We are not using it quite heavily, and there are not many issues or problems so far. However, it would be great if it could be integrated with more AI features and proactive monitoring. It could also have more automatic capacity expansion features. For example, when renting out some space, memory, or computing power, the service can have the capacity to expand by itself without being manually handled by us.

I have been using this solution for two to three years.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. It is easy to expand and unsubscribe. In terms of the number of users, we have ten administrators from the IT side.

We have interacted with them. They are quite responsive to our inquiries.

The initial setup was easy.

It was pretty much done by our in-house developers.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. I believe we are satisfied with the current pricing. Otherwise, we would have switched to another vendor.

I would recommend this solution. Amazon AWS cloud is pretty mature in terms of availability for most of the infrastructure components. It is a one-stop shop that gives everybody simple steps to get things done, which is great.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

I'm a service provider providing services to customers. I'm using AWS as sort of a generalization. There are 62 products offered by Amazon on cloud-related services, which include EC2, includes Silverlight, it includes a whole bunch of different solutions, F3, EBS, so we've got solutions that we have to support for all of it.

Glacier is one of the solution's most valuable features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The user interface (UI) needs improvement. Right now, it's not the best.

The product's authentication method could be better.

The pricing model could have a more competitive edge.

It would be great, in a future release, if the solution offers unified hybrid management, or hybrid cloud management.

I've been using the solution for four years at my current company. Personally, I have about eight years of experience with the product. I've worked with it for quite a long time at this point.

Generally, the solution is pretty stable. That said, when they have an event or an outage, it's pretty severe.

The solution is quite scalable. A company that needs to expand the solution should be able to do so pretty easily.

We have applications that run on AWS. However, in terms of administrators or interface people, that interface with AWS directly, we have probably about 80 users on the product.

I personally have never conversed with technical support. That said, I haven't heard of any complaints about their level of service. From that, I would assume that our organization is largely satisfied with their support offering.

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty simple and straightforward.

If you know the patterns for how to set up and host, it's a quick deployment. We normally automate all of our deployments anyway, so the deployment process itself is quick and easy.

The product is an a la carte service. It offers a set of microservices that are associated with it. Therefore, the solution pricing varies quite a bit.

The pricing could be more competitive. If a company is questioning whether it's cheaper than owning a server yourself and running a server yourself, the general answer to the total cost of ownership is yes, it is cheaper. However, if you have to move data around a lot, it will not be cheaper.

We've evaluated other options as we use a variety of other solutions as well. We've evaluated a lot of other companies.

We're an Amazon partner as well as customers of theirs.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I would recommend that most small to medium businesses that they use a consultative agency or a managed service provider to help them with the product.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

Most of our managed services are in Amazon Web Services. We also use Kubernetes clusters for some of the cases. 

We are basically on the cloud, and most of our clients prefer AWS as the cloud provider. Most of the solutions have been on-premises, which basically involves migration to AWS. We also started using a hybrid model because some of the clients prefer a hybrid cloud kind of approach, where they have an on-premises model and something on the cloud so that they can just connect their data centers to the public cloud. 

We are mostly using EC2 compute and other resources. Most of our managed services are in AWS, which some of our clients prefer.

User personalization and robotic process automation services need to be mature enough. More APIs are required for robotic process automation services. Azure is more mature in terms of user personalization and robotic process automation services. 

The document processing can also be better. Whenever we want to do any kind of document management, I try to do OCR, ICR, etc. The functionality in AWS has to be more like that.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost two and a half years.

It is a stable product. We do not have any issues with its stability. Most of the customers come for 99% to 99.95% availability. 

AWS has a very highly scalable model. Because the availability requirements are high, we typically go for additional redundancy. It is easily possible to support different operating models in AWS.

Their technical support is very good and fast. Whenever you need something to be fixed, they are able to do it completely.

It is comparatively very easy. We have our own R&D environment where we do our work. When we want to actually do something for the client, we just move the work that we have done in our R&D environment into the client's cloud. It is very easy to use all the services.

Its price is kind of okay. When we do a migration from on-premises to the cloud, we typically use the lift-and-shift model. Based on the studies that we have done, cost savings are definitely there when we moved from on-premises to the cloud.

I feel that you shouldn't basically stick with any particular cloud provider. If you really want to take the benefits of a multi-cloud environment, you should not build your applications focused on any particular cloud provider. You should build something that is generic, and whenever required, you should be able to switch to any kind of cloud provider. People tend to actually focus on one particular cloud provider, and they start building their applications to cater to that provider. You shouldn't do that. You should reap the benefits of all cloud providers. This is what we also say to our clients.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten. It is really good as compared to the other cloud providers such as Google Cloud.

We like how the scalability is kind of built-in. It has a dynamic scaling capacity which is very helpful. 

The dashboard allows us to configure the amount of storage we might need — It's sort of predictive. It predicts the kind of consumption that we are anticipating, which is a very helpful feature. These are some of the things that we gravitate to. 

They're pretty economical as well, regarding bite and gigabytes storage. They have a very economical approach compared to other storage services.

It's not our favorite for sure. Some of their well-listed services are not super configurable — at least to the extent that we would like to configure and customize them. Some of them are not that considerable as per our requirements. We have tried Dropbox and some other solutions as well, including One Drive, Dropbox, etc. It seems as if some of those solutions can be configured and customized a little more — like it's built into their fabric. AWS doesn't have that feel, but understandably, as they're such a behemoth.

They still haven't managed to crack some of the advanced think features, which are important especially if you're dealing with Mongo or any of the databases which are sort of non-sequel — like non-relational databases.

They have some sync related problems that we had noticed that we are trained to work around. Those are some of the things that our development team is struggling with.

I have been using Amazon AWS since 2018. 

So far, so good. It has met every challenge we have provided. It has worked. Never failed. We have never experienced any kind of downtime. We are very happy so far.

It's not like we have attempted a really sprawling, multi-talented, multi-national kind of integration, so I should not be commenting very much on it. To date, whatever we have tried, we have never faced any problems.

The technical support is okay. It takes a while to get their attention; maybe they are small players — they have bigger fish to fry. I'm not very involved in talking to technical support, our engineering team deals with them.

We have a team of around four or five engineers who handle all maintenance-related issues.

Regarding the initial setup, it took a while for us to get up to speed.

It was fairly complicated actually. It doesn't have many serverless services. Some of them (if the client is actually paying for them) need to be optimized. You also have to be sure to only use the ones that are absolutely the barest minimum or at least the most optimum set of solutions for the client, as it adds to their month to month costs. To configure and to decide what services to buy and what services to build as microservices and how to orchestrate those microservices in the middle base, that took us a while to sort out.

Considering the kind of services they provide and the space they play in, compared to other solutions like Microsoft and Google, I think they've done a pretty good job with their pricing. The pricing tiers; I like the way that they have dynamically structured the pricing mechanism; however, for small players, it's pretty expensive.

They're a successful company so I suppose many clients are willing to pay that kind of money for the services that they provide.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon AWS a rating of seven.

It is on the public cloud and we are using it for multiple purposes, including data storage and production.

The main feature that I like the most is the variety of solutions that it provides. It provides some analysis, business information and more. It provides a wide variety of services.

One area that could be improved is in data management. They could improve on the data side. For example, I see others with better cloud services and larger data computing capabilities.

We have been using Amazon AWS around four or five years now. 

We use it as a customer. 

I think the scalability on the computer side is good, not too much of a challenge. It is sometimes on the database side where we encounter challenges on the scalability. Sometimes it is not easy to scale beyond that point and we get a scalability error on the computer.

We have around 10 people working on it who do the maintenance, automation, and monitoring.

I would say support is average.

A lot of times I would prefer a better turnaround time in terms of the response we're getting, it should be faster. Often we have to wait a long time before the problem is solved. So it is generally a very poor product resolution.

My initial setup was quite straightforward.

I implemented it myself with one other person.

I would say to somebody who is moving to the cloud that it is very easy to start with. At the same time it is also important to make sure they have a very strong partner or a very strong team in-house.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Amazon AWS an eight on product and technology. But overall I would rate them seven if I include services and support.

The experience with Amazon AWS is error-free. That was also, of course, something that I really appreciate. That means it's really well-tested and, as published or as declared. So it works as-is. I think the interfaces are really quite usable and something that I think is user friendly.

I'm just bugged by the charges that I'm not really able to manage. If there is so much little stuff, that I enabled from time to time, then I get lost. And then I tend to forget about that. It would be better if there was a corresponding notification as well. I would like to see a notification indicating you have not used this instance. You might want to turn it off so as not to incur the cost or something like that. But because most of my usage is charged to my credit card. It's disappointing and frustrating at times. If they could provide some kind of entry point. Something similar to WordPress where small businesses could have an easy way to come up with a site that could behosted immediately.

My access to Amazon AWS is not so deep. I just set up VPCs and clusters or running an instance

I would say I'm quite satisfied. They're very pleasant to talk to and very helpful.

I would say that the Microsoft Azure interface is a lot slicker. But the last time I use it was around 2018. So comparing the interfaces in the dashboard views I think the Azure has the edge.

The initial setup was a little bit challenging because understandably it also tends to protect the user in terms of the security, both the user and the system. So if I understand and appreciate that level of complexity in setting how to access it, setting up the identities, and then once you get through it, I think the interfaces are really quite usable and something that I think is user friendly.

I would certainly recommend Amazon AWS. It's very useful because you can easily try out your compute requirements, whatever storage or whatever other services that you may want. I would rate Amazon AWS at an eight on a scale of ten.

We provide services to clients using Amazon AWS and I've also used it for our own applications.

AWS aligns very well with agile and DevOps practices, as well as and cloud-native principles like infrastructure as code. In short, it helps me deliver my product faster to market.

There are a lot of features that I really like including ease of deployment, ease of build and release, and also that it is heavily focused on a PaaS or SaaS model. All I have to worry about is my application and not about the infrastructure.

One of the problems that I have seen is that some of the products are not as mature as others. For example, their API Gateway is not as mature as Kong, and their version control system is not at mature as GitHub. It's the same thing with their databases like DynamoDB, which is not as mature as MongoDB. Once we have equality in products between on-premises and cloud, this system will be a very good proposition.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for about five years.

As the majority of products on AWS are PaaS or SaaS offerings, scalability is not a big concern. For some of the services, you have to give them notice if you want to scale them beyond certain limits.

I have been in contact with technical support and they are quite good at responding.

The initial setup is not complex. In fact, I would say that it is relatively easy.

The time required for deployment depends on which products are selected. Some take minutes, whereas others can take hours.

My advice for anybody who is considering AWS is to try exploring and use it. I think that it will save you a lot of time.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're building an application and host on Amazon. We are a startup company, so it's in a very early development stage. We're trying to build a particular application for multiple customers. The idea is if you have a VPC for each customer you can segregate each client with their own isolated environment. That's what we're building. We're going to build one application that can be personalized for each client. 

The fact that we as a startup don't have to invest in expensive hardware and a place to house it is very helpful for our small business. It saves us money in the long run in overhead costs and allows us to stay streamlined. There's no heavy investment on the outset and we're really just renting the exact amount of what we need.

AWS is a cloud platform. There are hundreds of tools within it. The cloud handles the updates so we never have to worry about looking for the latest version of the solution.

The solution offers a low footprint. We don't have to come up with a data center ourselves. We basically don't have to own any hardware. We just rent a slice of their platform and we have everything we need.

The biggest area for improvement is the fact that there are a vast amount of tools. The best way to describe it is this: you have lots of Lego pieces, hundreds of Lego pieces, but they all do something specific. However, it's very difficult to understand the purpose of these tools, how are they fit into our environment, our design ideas, etc. To assemble all of these tools, to make them fit into the architectural vision of the company, is very difficult. This is especially true for a startup that doesn't have unlimited resources for research and study. We cannot comprehend the vast amount of information that Amazon produces.

The pricing is very confusing.  

They should really consolidate and make things simpler rather than offer you hundreds of random options. The way everything is arranged really forces users to figure out everything on their own and then, on top of that, to calculate the total costs. There's an infinite number of combinations even just with cost calculations. It's too much. 

While the company has been around for three years and has used the solution since its inception, I have only worked here for three months and have a total of three months of experience with the solution.

The solution is very stable. AWS is quite reliable and we haven't had issues. There haven't been bugs, glitches, or crashes. It works well and as expected.

AWS is extremely scalable. It's designed to be. The sky really is the limit. Users and organizations can expand as much as they like.

We're a small company right now. We're still in the startup phase. We have about 20 people at the moment. We have a dozen developers directly on it now. That said, you probably only need two people for development and maintenance.

We do plan to expand in the future.

Personally I haven't used their support yet. I cannot give more info. I've only been at the company for three months and haven't faced any issues that required me to reach out to technical support.

We are just a startup so the company is young. The founders made the choice to use the database and they've used it since day one. 

The initial setup is both really straightforward and complex. At first, it's simple. However, as you get deeper into the solution and work in all kinds of variations or all kinds of scenarios, things get really complex. The more you have to consider the more complicated it can get. The complexities multiple quickly.

We use Terraform to provision the best infrastructure, which makes our platform really easy to manage in terms of our implementation strategy.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We didn't need to hire on an integrator or consultant to assist us.

The calculating of costs is quite difficult. There are all kinds of variables to consider and it's all very unclear.

It's my understanding that our company is charged a few hundred dollars on a monthly basis.

My understanding is that this product was used from day one. I don't think other options were considered. However, I was not at the company when AWS was implemented.

We're a startup company. It's a very small company with only 20 people. Everything we use is cloud-based. We're simply a customer of AWS. We don't have a special relationship with the company.

I'd warn others considering using the solution that the environment is vast and complex, and a company will need a lot of tools at their disposal for research and to understand the product. If there are people within the organization who already have experience with the architecture or with similar solutions within the AWS environment, that will help make implementation successful. It's important to bring people who have previous AWS architecture experience into the organization.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It does do everything we need it to do, however, as a small company, figuring it out is a big effort. Making it more streamlined or straightforward in the future would probably give it higher marks.