Amazon AWS Reviews

We do have quite a lot of AWS deployments and clients in certain countries.

We use it for spinning up environments, using infrastructure as code. We use it for disaster recovery and high availability for creating BMs for testing. Mainly on the service side, we use it for setting up environments and spinning up environments.

The monitoring is the most valuable aspect of the product.

Technical support is available if you need it.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is okay. It's similar to what you would get with Azure. 

The interface needs a bit of work. It's not intuitive.

The solution's initial setup can be complex. 

I've been using AWS for about 15 years. It's been a very long time. 

The stability is fine. I haven't had issues with crashing or bugs or glitches. 

The solution's scalability is pretty good. These solutions are pretty well known for not being able to scale well. They behave very differently at scale. I wouldn't say it's any better or worse than Azure is; it's probably on par.

Internally, we have about 500 people using the solution right now. 

I have never used technical support myself, although it's my understanding that our team does from time to time. We do all the first line ourselves. Anything that escalates to the third line, we have contracts in place to help us get assistance.

I found the initial setup to be pretty complex. It's just getting more and more complex, with the infrastructure as CodePipelines and that sort of thing. On a scale of one to five, one being the worst and five being the best in terms of complexity, I'd say it's a three.

I have no idea what the operational side does in terms of maintenance. It's not an aspect that falls under my responsibilities. 

I don't handle the licensing side of things and therefore cannot comment on the price of the solution.

We also looked at Azure DevOps.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We use various deployments, including on-premises, public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment is dependent on the customer, the solution, and the service level agreements that we have. We use all of those models. We make our choice based on the requirement.

I'd advise potential new users to actually do a shootout between the different products based on your use case and choose the right one.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, however, the UI needs improvement first.

I work on the AWS - the AWS Lambda portions of the Amazon cloud.

It's a good cloud for beginners.

There is no downtime. The solution is reliable. 

Deploying resources on AWS is fairly easy and more secure than any other cloud. That's what our initial impressions are.

Amazon AWS is very lame in the sense that it's into some sort of beginner stage stuff. Most of our customers prefer Azure Cloud over AWS. Azure has lots of features, especially on the identity side. It has integration with the social media built-in plugins. It has integration with a plethora of applications. It has that sort of an ecosystem. Amazon, on the other hand, on most of the integration side, there are applications in Java or there are customer-specific applications and therefore we have to do the development. This is in contrast to Microsoft Azure, where we get the ready-made plugins.

Our experience is AWS should be preferred for the financial sector where there are not very many changes. It's more minimal changes that come into play on the implementation side. We recommend Microsoft Cloud to most of our customers, especially when they want quick implementation and there are a plethora of things to integrate the cloud with. 

With AWS, we feel it has a lot of improvement areas. It's a good cloud, however, if I compare it with Azure, Azure is more of a feature-rich cloud. 

The initial setup can be a bit difficult. 

I expect AWS to come up with more identity features. They should have a very robust identity federation system, like what Azure and maybe Google Cloud are offering. Identity has some sub-verticals, like single sign-on and multifactor authentication and federation with some on-premise systems like ADFS servers or LDAP directories. Those things are very difficult to configure in AWS. AWS should come up with more connectors and more robust and user-friendly IdAM systems so that we can reduce time. We should be able to implement our projects faster.

I've been using the solution for two to two and a half years at this point. 

In terms of stability, the first impression is whatever services we have provisioned in the AWS cloud, we've never caught any issues where we needed to reach out to the Amazon support team. There is no downtime, for example. There are no application crashes. We don't need to plan any high availability or disaster recovery for any of our servers. In regards to that, Amazon is doing a very good job of offering good performance and reliability.

We've never needed to solicit the help of Amazon technical support, In contrast, in the case of Microsoft, we definitely needed their help.

Right now we are working on three clouds actually, Azure, AWS, and Google and we have SAP Cloud in the pipeline as well.

The initial setup is kind of difficult. It's not just users going to Amazon and buying it from an Amazon account. You have to do a lot of configurations.

On a scale of one to five, one being easy and five being hard, I'd rate the implementation process at a four. 

We don't buy the clouds. We give them to the customers and our customers buy the tenants, the subscriptions. They are aware of the license documents with Amazon and the other cloud vendors. Once we have the subscription of a customer, we do the technical implementation.

We don't get into procurement or subscription renewals or product updates or anything like that. We are more on the technical side.

We were doing some research on Oracle Cloud. Whether we are going to build the practice on Oracle Cloud or not, that's the call that has to be taken by my leadership. 

My job role is as a Cloud Security Architect. I prepare solutions and I sell them to the customers. My work primarily involves working on identity systems. I primarily work on the identity federation side. You have identities and disparate sources, and we prefer to have a single identity source using federations and then we prepare solutions around it and sell them to our customers. Those kinds of solutions are the ones I work in.

My advice for first-time users is, if you wish to migrate your private data center to a private cloud where you have servers like VPN servers, radio servers, you have servers for your own applications, whether it's Windows, Linux, Unix, or ADFS, it's better to go for an AWS cloud. However, if you are looking for identity Federation or identity provisioning, then you need to go for a Microsoft Cloud. 

I'll rate AWS  at a seven out of ten due to the fact that it's very secure. It has very good migration categories for the on-premises servers and applications to the AWS private cloud. I can't rate it ten out of ten due to the lack of IdAM features I've seen, and AWS has less of a user base as it's not very user-friendly. This is where Azure scores a lot higher for me. It's very user-friendly and it's feature-rich, actually. If AWS can develop a more feature-rich offering, it will be on par with Azure.

One of the most common use cases is people using the solution for hosting. Many people use it to backup their on-premises solution to the cloud. This is the most common use case I know of. 

The most valuable feature is the backup ability. Most people are used to one type of backup solution that they're using, but most of these solutions have features that make it difficult to transfer to the cloud. I know that Veeam now gives people the opportunity to backup some on-premises solutions to the cloud. This feature is something that a lot of people are looking for. 

I'm not an expert on the product, but if I had to suggest one improvement, I know a feature that would allow a person to back up his on-premise solution to the cloud directly with one click would be useful. This solution should be agnostic because sometimes a product that was backed up with Veeam is highly compatible with Commvault. I think it would be better if these backup features were agnostic. 

Viewing a build could also be improved. It's not easy to follow up on your consumption and see how much you're paying and how much you will be paying. Viewing the build could be more clear. 

I have been working with Amazon AWS for three years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

Two years ago, I was working on proofs of concept and I got in touch with their support. It was okay and they handled it. 

The setup process was quite simple. 

My company implemented through an in-house team. My company also provides the maintenance for this product. 

Amazon AWS is on the cheaper side, as their pricing is more competitive. There are no additional costs besides the license. However, Azure sells Microsoft licenses, so they have an advantage. 

I was aware of Google Cloud and Microsoft Cloud, but I chose Amazon because they have better products and more features. At the moment, Amazon is the leader in everything. 

I recommend trying Amazon AWS. You have nothing to be afraid of, as long as you're clear that you can handle your build. 

This product is suitable for any company, whether small, medium, or large. 

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten, just because there's always room for improvement. 

I'm not the developer, so I cannot judge the services provided by AWS, but we run our mobile banking application on AWS. Database-wise, it's heavily based on Elasticsearch, so this is probably one of the main features that we find most valuable. Aside from that, I'm not familiar with which AWS services we are using.

It's too early to say what needs to be improved, as we went live only at the beginning of this year. We started last year and went live at the beginning of this year, so it's still a work in progress. In terms of additional features we'd like to see, the one thing that comes to mind is better integration with Oracle. We have a lot of Oracle databases, and there is no other option to either migrate to PaaS, stay on-prem, or use Oracle Private Cloud. So better integration with Oracle is something we are looking into. It's the same story with AWS or Azure. 

We introduced AWS in production last year, so it's a relatively new development.

Setting up AWS was pretty easy. It was straightforward to set up, and it took us a year to develop and migrate our mobile banking solution to the AWS cloud. Our migration experience was quite positive.

The pricing of AWS was attractive for us, so that's something that's okay at least for this transaction-based system. However, we still have some concerns about more data-driven applications or those that involve a lot of heavy uploading and downloading. So our whole data warehouse is still something that would not go into the cloud because of the pricing model. So if you stayed pretty much in the cloud, that's fine.

I would rate Amazon AWS seven out of 10. We're really satisfied.

It's a powerful infrastructure as a service solution, IaaS. It offers compute resources, storage, networking, and databases to quickly create your cloud infrastructure.

Apart from the infrastructure as a service, the AWS Lambda, which functions as the service FaaS, is really powerful. 

It's a powerful way of quickly assembling or developing applications, which can be scaled immensely and also at a fraction of the cost because you are charged per the execution time of each function. If you are writing a small function as an AWS Lambda function, then you are paying only for those milliseconds for the time at which it runs. 

It's a very cost-efficient way of running applications in the cloud rather than running an EC2-compute instance, which is charged by the hour or by the minute. You typically have to keep the EC2 instance updating all of the time. Whereas in functions, a function is invoked only when a user is calling it. Or, the front-end is calling the backend function. Lambda is very powerful and it is also typically used as a mobile backend. Essentially, it's a very strong API-based backend for mobile solutions.

It has many choices of computer options, storage options, and even database options.

It's flexible, you can run any kind of workload on the infrastructure.

One feature I would like to see is to have a better or a more user-friendly web console. 

The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly. They can make it more user-friendly, which will be good for administrators or users of AWS.

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable. It is highly reliable.

It is highly scalable. It's a very powerful platform.

In my previous organization, there were 12 people using AWS.

We have used technical support to an extent, and it's fine. We are satisfied with technical support.

I have used Azure Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and I have a bit of experience with Google Cloud as well.

You have to create an EC2 instance, which is the compute. We have to create that to get the compute platform, but you have to install your application. You have to patch the operating system and you have to upgrade your operating system.

The operating system and upwards is the customer's responsibility in an EC2 instance.

It's a straightforward installation because it's your application and your operating system just like you are on-premises, but you will do it on the cloud through a browser or through a CLI, a command-line tool.

The deployment timeline depends on how complex your application is. Because you are getting the platform from AWS as a computing platform, you have to install your application. It depends on the complexity of your application, so it varies.

Depending on how much you are using it, determines the maintenance. Typically, you will need different roles, you will need administrators who operate this environment, and if you are also developing applications, you would need developers.

The installation and deployment can be done by yourself.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis.

It's a pay-as-you-go model.

Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

We plan to continue using this solution, and I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company to use several services like ECS, EKS, and S3 while also making it easy to use its hosting services in our infrastructure. The solution is good for efficiently leveraging all the aforementioned services to host different products.

The cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon AWS for around six years.

The solution's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product's scalability is good.

All the people in my company use the product. My company has engineers, software developers, site reliability engineers, and DevOps engineers who use the product.

The solution is used on a daily basis in my company.

For the purpose of scaling our company's operations, we host most of our applications on Amazon EKS. My company uses third-party open-source solutions for scalability purposes, so we are not completely dependent on Amazon AWS for autoscaling.

My company takes care of the problems related to the product. My company doesn't contact the product's technical support team. Though I have some previous experience with the product's support team, I haven't recently contacted them.

Previously, I worked with a tool on an on-premises model. I chose Amazon AWS since I wanted to use a cloud-based product.

My company is not dependent on Amazon AWS for deployment purposes since we use our own tools to handle the deployment area. My company uses Amazon AWS for the underlying platform but not for the deployment area since we have our own setup for it.

The initial setup phase may be pretty easy for those who learn to gain knowledge and expertise in Amazon AWS. At the initial stage, the product's users may look for more documentation on the tool, but I feel that the services under Amazon AWS are self-explanatory. I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven or eight out of ten.

I am a part of the team in my company that carries out the product's deployment in multiple regions.

The product's deployment process consists of a fully automated setup phase. Though my company had to be involved in a lot of engineering work in the initial phases, only around four to six members were required to take care of the deployment after the automation.

The solution can be deployed in around 10 to 15 minutes.

The tool is expensive.

As of now, our company does not need to leverage Amazon AWS for Amazon Big Data Analytics or Amazon Machine Learning. In the future, Amazon AWS can be used to leverage the benefits of Amazon Big Data Analytics or Amazon Machine Learning. Presently, my company plans to stick with the microservices model.

There is no need to maintain the product from our company's end since Amazon AWS takes care of the maintenance of the services the tool covers.

For cost saving, shut down instances when not in use and use spot instances while implementing step scaling policies. Doing regular audits, you will get to know what resources in your environment are leading to cost consumption.

AWS Global Cloud Infrastructure does not directly impact our company's application performance and availability. My company just consumes the services covered under Amazon AWS, after which we plan our application architecture. The impact is felt if Amazon removes support for some of its global products, as it may impact some legacy applications, but my company does not face many issues since we mostly upgrade such applications.

I rate the overall tool a seven or eight out of ten.

The product is easy to use. Its availability and support are its biggest strengths.

IAM must be made simple and straightforward. It is a little bit complicated compared to GCP.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

My company had signed up for professional support. We did not have any issues with support. It would be really tough to reach out to the support team on a personal level. For personal users, I rate the support a three to four out of ten. For professional users, I rate it a nine out of ten.

We are also using Google Cloud Platform. The choice of the product depends on people’s familiarity and their inclination toward using a certain product.

The tool’s pricing is reasonable.

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

The introduction of the ITD pipeline makes the development and operation cycle easier for the organization.

The solution also helps organizations to move applications to a containerized platform.

Instead of using some third-party solutions, Amazon should include them as part of its offering.

Currently, we are using some third-party services for various purposes. Amazon can acquire those open-source products and provide them with managed services.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about six years.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is always high, and the customer can seamlessly scale up the solution. I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is very easy. Amazon AWS is the easiest cloud platform to learn and deal with compared to any other provider.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten for ease of initial setup.

Any service built on AWS is very easy and quick to deploy and does not take much time. Within 10 to 15 minutes, you can bring a server up and launch a website.

The pricing of Amazon AWS is high compared to any other cloud provider.

Amazon AWS was deployed on the cloud in my organization.

Overall, I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.