Amazon AWS Reviews

My use case involves hosting websites and setting up all the source code on the server. I manage their server, especially when new starters are launching.

It has helped by minimizing costs and setting up infrastructure efficiently.

Support is really good. The solution provides a user-friendly dashboard and a highly user-friendly user interface. It has contributed by minimizing costs and efficiently setting up infrastructure for the organization.

Recently, new dashboards have been launched. This new UI is an improvement that they have made.

I have been using AWS for three years.

Stability is rated as nine out of ten. There are no issues with downtime, bugs, or glitches.

It is a scalable product and works well.

The technical support is excellent, rated at nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not complex and does not take much time.

Around six people were involved in the deployment.

AWS is cost-efficient and cheap for some services. Overall, it offers an affordable deployment with a very minimum possible rate.

I recommend AWS as it's very scalable and cheap for some services. 

I rate the overall solution nine out of ten.

I use Amazon AWS for ERP implementation. My responsibility is to integrate our application into the AWS cloud and provide AI solutions to the infrastructure.

AWS is stable and has provided a reliable infrastructure for my organization.

AWS offers add-on services such as security and automated solutions, which are very useful for ERP management. It also provides dynamic token security, which is beneficial for data security.

AWS should reduce its cost to become more affordable for small-scale organizations. Currently, it is considered expensive compared to Azure and Google Cloud.

I have been working with AWS for four years.

AWS is stable, and so far, we have not faced any major incidents or issues.

I would rate the scalability of AWS eight out of ten. It is especially suitable for large-scale organizations.

AWS provides real-time solutions through their support center and offers comprehensive online documentation that helps solve issues efficiently.

Positive

Most organizations I work with also use other cloud services like Oracle OCI Cloud or Microsoft Azure depending on the application requirements.

The initial setup of AWS is straightforward and does not require much time due to automated configuration solutions.

In our project, six resources maintain one hundred and eighteen clients for AWS support and infrastructure services.

Large-scale organizations using AWS appreciate its infrastructure, security, and comprehensive global services, which justify the cost for them.

The cost is determined by the space, region, and duration of use. AWS is perceived as quite expensive compared to other cloud service providers.

Some organizations consider Microsoft Azure Cloud or Oracle Cloud as alternative solutions.

For those considering AWS, it's advisable to discuss cost reductions with vendors to make it more accessible for smaller organizations.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I use AWS for our insurance portal, managing clients, investments, and other related data.

We use S3, Lambda functions, and EC2 instances for various tasks, including RDR instances.

Its set up is plug and play, so it improves the implementation.

AWS is known for its scalable cloud hosting and computing services. We use various features depending on our needs, including endpoint services, database instances, and EC2 instances.

There is room for improvement in pricing. 

I have been using it for two years.

It's stable. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. Maybe some technology gap, which we don't know is there. 

It's scalable. Currently, around 1500 users are using our application. We might increase the further usage. 

We only contacted customer service and support once. The response was very quick.

Setting it up was easy.

The entire deployment process took us around two to three months. It is a manual process but we plan to automate it with Terraform soon.

We did it in-house. We learned and upgraded our skills ourselves.

We had a team of admins and developers for the deployment process.

It's a bit expensive but stable and easy to use. Licensing fees depend on the contract. It can be monthly or on-demand resources.

AWS is very good to use. Moreover, the integration between various AWS services is very easy. 

Overall, I would rate my experience with AWS a seven out of ten. 

I generally EC2 workloads. We use it to host our applications and provide our software service on the cloud. We integrate with EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service) to manage containerized applications.

EKS helps us manage our containerized applications on AWS. We use various AWS services for different functionalities, such as computing services, database storage, content delivery, etc.

AWS's security model, including IAM or security groups, has contributed to our organization's compliance. It manages authentication, permissions, and overall security posture, which helps us maintain compliance.

AWS has made our lives much easier. It simplifies workload management and operations.  

The cloud-based nature of AWS is crucial for scaling our resources effortlessly. It's a key reason we chose AWS.

We find EKS particularly helpful for its ease of use and management of containerized applications.

Faster API response times and an improved console experience would be better. Enhanced performance across APIs and the console would streamline our workflows.

In future releases, improved compatibility and minimal downtime during upgrades would be significant enhancements.  

I have been using it for seven years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It's generally very reliable.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. No problem with scaling this product.

There are around 300 end users in my company using this solution. 

AWS technical support is good in general.  

Positive

The features, quality, and support are likely comparable to other products.

The initial setup is simple. 

Pricing definitely isn't high; I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

AWS pricing is quite competitive. AWS is cost-effective because it saves time. Faster deployments and testing make it very valuable. Pricing isn't the main thing; it's more about getting things done efficiently. Then, engineers can discover additional savings within AWS itself.

So, it's more flexible. We save a lot of time thanks to AWS

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We build business applications for our customers using Amazon AWS in 15 different industries.

Many of my customers use many cloud services together.

The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are the high level of capabilities, cloud-native environment, developer-friendly, intuitive interface, and automation. The solution overall is easy to learn from the resources available.

The customization could improve. However, it depends on the customization needed. 

To enhance its capabilities, Amazon AWS should improve its integration with other digital security platforms and solutions, especially those used by companies in domains, such as banking, financial services, and insurance. While Amazon AWS has its own solution, there are many other initial vendor companies that perform exceptionally well. Therefore, it is crucial for Amazon AWS to have better integration with those platforms and solutions, including how to host and integrate them with the rest of the Amazon AWS services. Although Amazon AWS has its strengths, it doesn't always work seamlessly for customers, making it a significant obstacle to migrating applications to Amazon AWS. Rather than focusing on developing new features, Amazon AWS could better serve its customers by supporting these existing solutions in the digital security space.

There are many excellent encryption solutions available, along with many other solutions. By supporting these solutions and offering easy integration, Amazon AWS can create a win-win situation for its customers.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately seven years.

When you have complex deployments, such as with more than two availability zones, there are reliability, and resiliency options that are complex to implement and expensive. Providing stability or more complex deployments is possible, but very expensive.

I rate the stability of Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We have more than 50,000 users using this solution in my organization. Everyone in our company is using the solution.

The solution is highly scalable.

I rate the scalability of Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

The support provided by Amazon AWS is highly responsive. We have a strong alliance with Amazon AWS, and we regularly interact with their teams. They conduct knowledge-sharing sessions for us and keep us informed about new features. They are always available to support us. They have helped us from the inception phase of any large engagement up to providing help in troubleshooting some problems. They are extremely helpful.

I rate the support of Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with Google Cloud Services and Microsoft Azure.

Amazon AWS is known for building many industry platforms, and companies often look to all three hyper scalers to help them build such platforms on Amazon AWS. Large consortia of companies collaborate on such initiatives. However, Google and Azure are more interested in partnering with and supporting industry-level consortiums and technology initiatives, while Amazon AMS sees it more as an engineering capability and expects developers to build everything from the ground up. Therefore, Amazon AMS may need to adjust its approach slightly in comparison to its competitors.

The simplicity of Amazon AWS depends on the engineering processes implemented by the client's organization. Setting up these processes may take some time, but the AWS SDK provided by Amazon is helpful. Moreover, integration with other tooling is also necessary.

Once the processes and platforms are configured, the execution becomes automatic. This has been successfully accomplished in many engagements where pipelines are run for tasks, such as provisioning new infrastructure and making multiple releases.

For a business with a small deployment and with minor features needed the process of implementation can take 30 minutes and in some instances less than 15 minutes. However, if it's a large release with multiple features, including verifications, it can take up to one and a half hours maximum. The more features added the longer the implementation will take.

In comparison to Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure, the database offered by Amazon AWS is relatively expensive. However, the database also offers rich features.

I rate the price of Amazon AWS a six out of ten.

If you compare Amazon AWS with other hyper scalers, such as Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS is the most sophisticated cloud development platform.

The amount of people for the maintenance of the solution depends on the engagement we have with our customers. Some of our customers are sophisticated with modern infrastructure and can handle most of the maintenance themself.

The engineering team responsible for development also handles maintenance, upgrades, and support without any differentiation. However, some customers still follow an older mindset, where a separate ops team is responsible for platform maintenance and operations.

One approach is to have a centralized model where a team of 20-30 members manages all the applications, including operations and maintenance. Alternatively, a distributed model may be used, where four or five different teams manage different aspects. However, on average, the team size for the entire IT organization is typically around 20-30 people.

I strongly recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

I gave my rating of eight because the price of the feature is more expensive than the competitors.

We are using it for certain business applications.

The scalability is a valuable feature. 

The improvement should be done as per business needs. 

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, 3,000 users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The pricing is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The thing is, in case of disaster, then you really need to think about the disaster, which is less cost-effective. If I'm the customer and I have a midsized environment, I need to host a web application or a front-end application. Why should I go with this on-premises data center, the firewall, the hardware, and then monitoring, then administration? These are more cost-effective. 

So, I will go with the midsized and small-sized public cloud where I can have the opportunity for high availability with the region side. And secondly, in case of disaster, we have the product available without any downtime.

The style, the thoughts, and the people are still not convinced with this public. But they don't have any other options. It has been changed after the pandemic only.

The best thing is scalability.

Some people complain that customization is very difficult in AWS. So they think there are other options. If we have everything ready in AWS or any public cloud, if I have two deployments in bulk, then I will get automation. If automation is ready, then I can do everything in a single click.

In future releases, I would like to see more automation.

I started using this solution after the pandemic. So, it has been three years now. And one thing I have noticed is that after the pandemic, it is more recommended to move to the public cloud. 

Prior to the pandemic, people were thinking of expanding their data strategically with Cisco UCS. They thought in that way. But now the approach has changed.

I used Amazon AWS for a small business, like a midsized business that wants to build their environment in the public cloud. And they want to get high availability, and in case of disaster recovery, they can have other opportunities.

We don't have a much bigger environment. So we have a smaller environment, like 10 to 15 VMs.

For a smaller project in Europe, we deployed Dell VXL for 35 sites. The customer has now invested in Dell VXL and is building 30 to 35 sites for Dell VX-ten. This is a huge investment, so they need to stay on this platform for five years. By the end of their standard support period, their hardware will be end of its life. In the meantime, they are exploring the public cloud to create a hybrid environment. Once their hardware becomes obsolete and offline, they will definitely consider the public cloud. Similarly, people who are still on-premises with legacy or Cisco systems will also consider the public cloud. They are in the existing environment and are just waiting for their hardware to reach the end of life. For the next expansion, they want to move to the cloud.

The initial setup is easy.

In a cloud environment, we need just to associate that business. If I have to build approximately 10 to 15 VMs, we have the templates. We have the AMI. We have everything in place. We need to just automate and place everything in the dashboard. It is very easy to customize.

I will recommend you to use it, at least explore what services they are offering, what features they are offering.  

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Amazon AWS provides a total solution and helps us to run applications.  

The tool is a hosting platform that we can leverage to open servers. We can use it to build databases. We use cost management and high-performance capabilities of the tool. 

Amazon AWS should integrate AI capabilities. 

I have been using the solution for five to six years. 

Amazon AWS has bugs. It is not a big issue since the product is a SaaS solution and fixes them. 

My company has around 1,000 users who use the product daily. 

I used Microsoft Azure before. I chose Amazon AWS since it has APIs that I can use for software development. 

I rate the product's installation a nine out of ten. One resource is enough to handle the deployment. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten.