Amazon AWS Reviews

We have applications that are running on the PaaS platforms.

In the healthcare environment, we use Amazon AWS to run healthcare and hospitalization applications.

The end-user is largely unaware of how the backend works, so some of the services are provided by Amazon. So, where we are, some of the applications have been running since the beginning, and we have been using them. And some of the services are required by the packages we are running, so they use Amazon PaaS as a service.

In general, Amazon's performance is good.

When I try to enter the multi-cloud, they provide very poor support. Support is a concern with Amazon.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a few years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution, it is far more stable than some others.

Amazon AWS is scalable, depending on the platforms and services that are used.

In our company, we have 50,000 employees who use this solution.

We intend to increase our users based on how the new releases go, and if the economics work out better than Google and Microsoft, we will definitely look to Amazon because Amazon can be extremely competitive at times.

It should be faster. Unlike Google's and Microsoft's support, Amazon's support should be faster.

We have used other PaaS clouds previously.

The hospitals were available on Amazon. We have certain hospitals that were part of the group when it first started, but there are a lot of hospitals that are in the process of being acquired. Once the setup is acquired, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for them to bring it through one enterprise architecture. Now, it is not necessary to have services from only one cloud service provider; instead, we can have services from multiple providers, and we are working to integrate the multi-cloud.

Essentially, you must design and optimize the architecture. It is not the most straightforward process to install. You must first design your architecture and then optimize it in relation to the services.

Earlier I used to work there, and we had a real skill shortage because we needed people who could understand and work in the cloud. When we developed centers of excellence and core competencies, people were required to work across multiple platforms, which is a challenge that we are currently working on. As a result, the real challenge now is for a team to have a multi-cloud. Now, if we can develop this talent organically, that will be fantastic. We'll spread out the support team we require. Another initiative that is being worked on is automation, automating scripts, and new technologies, which are assisting us greatly with serverless and cloud computing.

It can get quite pricey at times. Because of the patterns we're attempting to use, it becomes very expensive. Where we can save money by using Google components or Microsoft components, we can go much cheaper.

You must pay a licensing fee, which is based on the usage.

Essentially, it is determined by how we use the services. There are sometimes are a soft service, sometimes we pay yearly, and sometimes we pay as we use it.

Yes, I would recommend this solution. If we compare the three, I would rank Google first, Microsoft second, Amazon third, and the rest would follow.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

Propension ML model implementation, so the tech stack involves ETL, storage and computation capabilities for model design, implemented solution also involves pipelines and events handler for automated runs

Development of the product has been consistent which is beneficial for data engineers unlike Azure which has changed a lot, causing them much confusion.

Amazon has a much better understanding of the workflow of data scientists and machine learning processes. This is seen by their SageMaker which offers different versions of the models to be used.

I think that the interface could be improved.

Additionally, they lack good connectors with services within other clouds. For example, it does not integrate well with Power BI which is a Microsoft service.

Sometimes, some of their services can be too complex/technical. It's almost like they tried taking a microservice approach meanwhile the users want a little more integration

In other words the multi-cloud approach is not robustly promoted as there is a noticeable difference in ease of use.

I have been using this solution for eight months.

just one event where the whole service was down, although im not sure if it was anticipated by the service due to not being the actual service administrator

very good, the tier we used is one of the most basic and still performed with no problems

never had experience with customer service or support

Neutral

pretty straight forward, although this project was 2nd one to be implemented on this cloud, so the customer company had already been up the adoption curve of the service

we provide the implementation as a consulting company soy neither in house or 3rd party as we are the 3rd party

If you are looking to implement Amazon AWS within your company, I would suggest finding someone that already knows some AWS as it has a harder adoption curve.

I would rate it a six out of ten. 

I used Amazon AWS to create a server for our local application and integrated it for clients.

What I liked most about Amazon AWS are its services and infrastructure. They're good. It's a very user-friendly platform. Its servers are also more reliable than others.

An area for improvement would be their technical support packages. They should improve the technical support packages for users on free trial. There is a gap between the user and their technical support team. My suggestion is for them to build on their support for their free trial users.

I used Amazon AWS within the last 12 months, but not right now as I used it for my old project, when I was creating an EC2 server at that time. That was my virtual project, so I created an account and used the AWS services, and also created the server, but that project was closed, so the need was unmet.

Amazon AWS is so stable.

Amazon AWS is scalable, and I'm rating it a nine out of ten for scalability.

Installation for this solution is not complicated. It's easy to install. It's straightforward. If I were to rate my experience with the initial setup of Amazon AWS, with five being the best and one being the worst, I'm giving it a five out of five.

Amazon AWS was deployed in-house. I didn't use any integrator, reseller, or consultant.

I was working with Alibaba Cloud before I worked with Amazon AWS. Alibaba Cloud is comparatively more difficult than Amazon AWS.

I also evaluated Google Cloud and the main differences between Amazon AWS and these other products include how Amazon AWS was easy to use, user-friendly, and its infrastructure.

I've also used the server I built via Amazon AWS for our Android applications, and found the reliability and the stability of that server to really good. I can use it again next time when I'm into development. The server's always good.

I had four customers on Amazon AWS. Those customers were architects working in technology and IT companies.

I also created a server for our taxi application client as one of my projects. I have a local user.

I had three to four people for deployment and maintenance. Some were nontechnical, while some were technical, with an IT background.

Because I was on the free trial version of Amazon AWS, I didn't get to use their technical support.

I used the free trial of Amazon AWS for my clients. I used it during the testing period. I developed applications for clients, then recommended AWS servers to them for the applications.

I highly recommend this platform to others who are considering using it, because its stability is good.

We have different requirements vs other users, so I'm not in a position to recommend features, especially because I have not used all the features of Amazon AWS. I can't say that this feature is good, or that feature is bad. I can't say which features to add to the next release.

I'm rating Amazon AWS a nine out of ten and this is both from an integrator and customer perspective.

My company is a reseller of Amazon AWS. We have approximately 500 users.

I am a multi-cloud engineer and I am certified with AWS. Our primary use case is to set costs and cost integration on the cloud as well as some databases.

The cost of Amazon AWS is similar to Azure and has the same value. It is a user friendly solution.

AWS could use better integration with other products and clouds. Multi-cloud is an important solution for cost savings.

I have been using AWS for six months.

Amazon AWS provides good support.

The initial setup is easy, it's a friendly console for implementation.

The licensing costs is billed monthly.

If you are considering Amazon AWS you should think about the cost of solutions and the ability to create systems and instances.

I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

We use it to run workload applications, ERP systems, LISAP systems, etc. Everything is on the cloud, including our technical infrastructure for computing, storage, and networking. You can deploy applications like SAP or Oracle or run any website with applications on it.

You can build and release applications quickly with AWS instead of waiting for months to get the necessary hardware. That's the real benefit. The time-to-market for developing applications is much shorter. 

The most valuable thing about AWS is its ease of use and agility. You can quickly deploy it, and there are no upfront costs.

One problem is that the AWS public cloud doesn't have shared storage capabilities. The second thing is the cloud performance versus on-prem. I also have one suggestion that's solution-based. For example, if I want to deploy a medical solution, I would like to have a medical template, so I don't have to set up the infrastructure from scratch. They should provide everything in a pre-defined custom solution blueprint. 

We've been using AWS for four years.

AWS is generally reliable, but we've seen a lot of issues lately, so I would say they have some room for improvement. For example, if the user doesn't configure something correctly, it might fail. Even if AWS is reliable, that doesn't guarantee that all the users will be reliable. They need to make the design foolproof. 

AWS is a cloud provider, so the scalability is almost infinite. Our company currently has around 500 users on AWS. 

We have enterprise support, so they have different levels. If you have enterprise support, they have obligations they must meet. In our experience, Amazon support is above average. Sometimes we get good support. Sometimes we don't. I would rate it six out of 10. 

The AWS initial setup is seamless and straightforward. We set it up ourselves, and we have a 10-person team to manage and maintain the solution. Including design and planning, it took us about three months. 

I rate AWS seven out of 10. My advice is to watch out for the cost. A public cloud means you can use any resource, and there is no upfront cost. That means someone can use an expensive computing solution that might cost them tons of money. No one is holding your hand, so you can use it, but you need to be conscious of the cost before using the solution.

We are primarily using the solution for evaluation purposes.

The functionality and the UI are both very straightforward.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The stability is good.

Technical support is quick to assist.

The pricing could be better. It's a bit expensive. 

The availability could be better.

I've been using the solution for about two years.

I haven't had any issues that would bring stability into question. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I can't speak to the scaling. It's not something I've attempted. I just use it myself.

I can't say that there are plans to increase usage right now. 

Technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. They are very fast.

This is my first cloud product. I did not use something previously.

The initial implementation process is not difficult or complex. It's straightforward. It's basically having the computing power, the storage, S3, and the database.

The implementation was handled in-house. We did not use an external integrator, reseller, or consultant.

It's a costly product.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. It's below $100 a month.

I haven't done any evaluations or comparisons with other products.

We are customers.

We are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We primarily use it for our clients, for infrastructure purposes. 

The solution has been stable. 

The solution can scale well.

Implementing the solution is very simple. 

There are a lot of scripts and data forms are available. For us, it's not required as much now. I don't know what should do that could be extra.

They should offer fixed costs instead of basing it on consumption. There's a huge cost for support.

We've used the solution for two years. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable and reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have four customers as of now in AWS.

Right now, they are developing in India. more regions are coming online as they grow. 

Scalability is quite good.

Technical support has been very good. We don't have any complaints. We are satisfied with the level of support on offer.

The installation of AWS is straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. They make it pretty simple. 

If you have past experience with deploying AWS, then it shouldn't take more than a week. 

We have 15-20 team members that work across different technologies and they can handle deployment. We have a team of just over 20 that can handle maintenance. They are admins.

We can deploy the solution for our clients. We have a team that can manage the process. 

The pricing and licensing are good. It's a bit better than, for example, Azure. They have a different model for charging clients. 

Technical support costs extra. It could be cheaper.

We have customers who use the solution.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We use AWS for the development of applications and websites for our customers. We produce web applications.

This is a highly available solution with a good API.

The documentation is very good.

Not all of the functionality is available in Europe and our customers in France want to be able to use features that are only available in the US. 

We have been using Amazon AWS for six years.

This is a stable product.

Amazon AWS is scalable. We develop projects for our clients, so the number of users grows each easy client. At this point, there are several hundred users and we plan to continue increasing our usage.

We don't use technical support very much, so I can't properly evaluate them. What I can say about Amazon is that they do not have a larger support team in Europe or even France. If we compare them to others, for example, Google has more support in our country.

AWS is the first cloud provider that we used.

The initial setup is very complex.

The first time we deployed this product, it was long. It took several weeks. Now that we have deployed it for several clients and have more experience, it only takes a couple of days.

We completed the deployment ourselves but there is a lot of documentation so it's possible, but it's better to have a consultant because it's difficult to know how to do it well the first time.

No staff is required for maintenance.

We pay monthly licensing fees.

Pricing is an area that can be improved because it is very complicated. It considers the number of processes, bandwidth, and different kinds of usage. This makes it difficult to predict. When we receive an invoice, there are always surprises. Now that we have used it for a long time, we have more information and are better able to estimate it.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to have a strategy for calculating or monitoring the price. For example, have some alerts set up.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.