Amazon CloudFront Reviews

If you're using AWS entirely, it's smooth sailing. But with a mixed stack, things get complicated.

With a mixed stack, things become a problem. With GCP and Azure, the DNS setup gets tricky when using CloudFront. With AWS, it's smooth and streamlined. Their GUI provides all the details and is very easy to navigate. 

The challenge starts to occur because AWS gives you only one DNS endpoint for the entire service. This single endpoint covers your CDN, AWS server, and domain migration needs.

If you use any other solution like GCP or Azure, you face additional configuration changes and account management. You need separate accounts for AWS CloudFront and your chosen platform, like GCP. This means securing and managing two separate accounts – an extra responsibility.

With Cloudflare, you just need one account and pay for it. Managing the complex DNS details isn't your burden. However, on the flip side, CloudFront might require more hands-on management on your part.

I have been utilizing it for the past three years. 

Amazon is top-notch in terms of customer service, on par with the quality of their services. They've been very supportive. Though, if I had to compare, I'd rate Akamai's support slightly higher.

Positive

We utilize all products: Akamai, CloudFront, and even Cloudflare. We have many clients who work with different technologies, so we get the chance to experience diverse options as tech partners.

As tech advisors, it's our responsibility to offer informed recommendations because we're partnering with the client and ultimately responsible for ensuring which tech is suitable. 

Our task is to offer them the best XYZ stack options based on their needs. They want to avoid tech hassles, so they've outsourced everything. We provide our best recommendations through consultations and design based on those consultations. Then, there's a back-and-forth with the client regarding budget, team analysis, and deployment decisions. 

Once we have all the information, we move forward. We don't have complete control, but we have a significant influence, around 60%, on the technology chosen for migration.

CloudFront itself is relatively easy to configure, much easier than Akamai. But using it with other server platforms like GCP or Azure can be a real pain.

So, on CloudFront, the ease of use comes at the cost of managing a single endpoint for everything, while Cloudflare offers more flexibility but requires more management effort.

There is an ROI. Our organization is based in India, a lot of our clients are multinational enterprises or even non-profits.  

We've been using CloudFront to provide a good user experience and security, and we've been pretty happy with it. Especially for non-profits where cost optimization is crucial, CloudFront has kept things moving in the optimal direction.

For CloudFront, I'm quite satisfied with the pricing. Initially, it doesn't require many resources for this specific solution. 

Additionally, the pay-as-you-go model with a generous free tier makes it easy to onboard and pay for what you use. This is a big advantage for SMEs, making it very convenient.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten if it is in the AWS ecosystem. So, it's mainly great on AWS.

If you're using another ecosystem, like Azure or something else, then it might be more like five out of ten.

I primarily use it to serve static content and to provide an additional call drive to the API Gateway.

It is very effective in enhancing our application's global reach with its distributed network across geographical locations. It has improved both the performance and reach of our applications.

The most beneficial feature is capturing the static data, which is crucial for our operations.

There is a bit of a workaround required for custom domain management on CloudFront. Mapping the domain involves some complexity with the domain provider, and it's tricky when doing it for the first time.

I have been using CloudFront for five years.

Stability is good. It does not face significant issues or break down.

Scalability is good, there are no issues observed.

Customer support is rated six out of ten due to knowledge-related aspects.

Neutral

The initial setup is not straightforward and requires some prior knowledge and experience.

CloudFront is relatively cheap and worth the money.

One needs to be aware of how data caching works, especially when trying to refresh data, as it involves cache invalidation, which requires some management.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Amazon CloudFront for offloading our media libraries for WordPress. It is mostly used for our clients' websites where we need to use a CDN for speed optimization of websites.

Using Amazon CloudFront drastically increases the performance of websites. The integration process is simplified and clear, especially with the plugin we use. This has improved our speed optimization effectively.

The best feature of Amazon CloudFront is its simplified process and easy integration. The plugin we use does most of the work, making it easy for us. The speed optimization is another valuable feature.

There are some solutions needed for integration that are not free. It would be better if there was a straightforward way to configure it without additional costs.

I have been using Amazon CloudFront for two years.

I do not remember having any difficulty with stability while using Amazon CloudFront.

Amazon CloudFront is easy to scale up or down as needed.

The initial setup of Amazon CloudFront requires experience and expertise.

I haven't compared pricing with other solutions, so I can't comment on it. Usually, it depends on the number of files you are uploading and the resources you are distributing. It is a pay-as-you-go model.

I would recommend Amazon CloudFront to other people.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I've used CloudFront, as the company's CDN, to distribute content across better local servers to help the final user perform better.

The most valuable feature is the number of servers they can put your content in while being reliable. They are stable. It's a strong feature that helps distribute content close to the users.

The user interface could be improved. It's much easier to control or see financial results from similar solutions from Google.

The solution is very stable. I can only remember one or two times that the product was unstable, but overall, it is very hard for something to go wrong.

The solution is very scalable.

In the free tier, you receive very little support from Amazon. You get more support with premium support, but I believe Amazon lacks documentation. This is mainly a problem with people like us from abroad because it's not common for them to translate materials, and they are closed off from the community, so they do not offer the greatest support.

Neutral

It takes a long time to deploy the solution, but the most difficult part is deploying it nicely. The user should fine-tune the configuration to achieve the solution's full potential.

Depending on the complexity of the deployment, the number of people required varies. Just deploying the CDN on the cloud is not hard. If you have one or two good developers, they can deploy the solution themselves.

I rate Amazon CloudFront's pricing a five out of ten.

Amazon CloudFront is not the most complex application for Amazon to set up, but some complexities could be improved to get the most of the power out of this service. However, the solution works perfectly when designed well by the architect.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use the solution to expose fact files to have more latency. We expose the front end of applications using the product.

We can personalize a lot of things inside CDN.

The product should be more intuitive. It should provide better descriptions of the fields. It can improve the cache and have some customization inside cache configurations. While the product is easy to understand for a developer, it is not so easy for a DevOps engineer like me.

Support is good. Once, I wanted to increase the response time and did not understand which feature to use. So I requested support to increase the timeout. At that moment, it was intuitive because I searched the Internet and understood the use case.

Positive

The ease of setup depends upon the use cases. If you are using the most common use case, it's not difficult to set up. We can put our application in origin. We can put an S3 bucket as the origin and research and request from there. You can limit the request to be private inside the product and S3. When we need to go a little bit deep, like when we need to customize some things related to cache, the setup is not intuitive.

We do not need to maintain the product after deployment and calibration. We customize the information from our application in the product and choose the use case. We do not need to worry about maintaining the solution after that.

Cloudflare is more simple, but it is more focused on other use cases. Most companies I work with use 90% CloudFront and 10% Cloudflare.

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

Amazon CloudFront is a service that allows us to host our website or video on a domain. If we want to access a specific page on our website directly, we can create a CloudFront connection to the hosting server for our website. If we want to launch our website and then link it to documentation or other elements quickly, we can do so directly through CloudFront. Afterward, we can link our domain to the CloudFront distribution.

Amazon CloudFront is a service that dramatically accelerates the delivery of our static and dynamic web content.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed of delivery. For example, if we have HTML, CSS, PHP, images, and media files, CloudFront can deliver them quickly and reliably through its worldwide network of edge locations. This reduces latency, allowing webpages to open faster, while also providing high performance.

If the content is not stored in the Amazon CloudFront location, it will be retrieved from an origin, such as Amazon S3, a MediaPackage Channel, or an HTTP file server. For example, if the content is stored on a web server, that server can be identified as the source for the requested content. Suppose that we are hosting an image on a traditional web server, such as a PNG file. We might place the image on a website with the image name adhikary.png. This way, our users can easily navigate to the URL and see the image. When we use Amazon CloudFront, however, they may not be aware that the request is routed from one network to another. This is because the complex connections of interconnected networks that comprise the internet are hidden until the image is found.

Amazon CloudFront can improve by accurately determining the latency of a non-defined URL that the solution encounters. For example, if we have a direct connection, the solution will link to the data in a fraction of a second but if we don't have a direct connection and are using a domain name instead, it will take longer to connect. To improve this, we should consider getting a direct connection.

I have been using the solution for several months.

The stability of the product is very high, and it will not be affected by the connection of the endpoint to CSS, HTML, or CloudFront. Amazon CloudFront is an independent product and its stability is also very good.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support provides extensive support for their managed services. In most cases, we don't need much support, but if any issues arise, AWS provides quick and reliable assistance.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. I give the deployment an eight out of ten.

I believe the solution is more expensive. Amazon's pricing varies depending on the data transfer. The cost depends on how much data is transmitted from that particular CloudFront. The cost is lower if we are located in America and hosted in America.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

Navigating Amazon CloudFront is easy and provides many options. Image access management, CloudFront delivery, and the location and IP address range of the CloudFront server is all easily accessible. I find Amazon CloudFront to be particularly productive, making it a great choice for my needs. If an organization is using Amazon's cloud service it is best to use Amazon CloudFront and stay away from other solutions.

We use the product as a CDN in front of several public websites.

The platform's most valuable feature is its ability to deliver content globally, optimizing website delivery for users worldwide. Additionally, it is an inexpensive product.

I encountered challenges with seamlessly integrating different services. Specifically, integrating a WAF (Web Application Firewall) with CloudFront took a lot of work. The process required managing infrastructure, including configuring VPC (Virtual Private Cloud) settings, setting up load balancers, and connecting them to the WAF. The lack of seamless integration made the setup process more complex and required additional research to manage all the services properly.

We've been using Amazon CloudFront for about 3 months now.

The platform is stable.

The product is highly scalable, even if you use it on a large platform. It's designed to handle increased demand without errors. Additionally, if you need more power or resources, you can easily find a solution within AWS.

The initial setup was straightforward, but it required some research. For a small website, it took about one day to one and a half days to complete the setup. Without prior research, it could take up to three hours to set up once you're familiar with the process. The complexity ultimately depends on the architecture, but managing the website takes two to three hours.

Our ROI with CloudFront is quite favorable. We can deliver our services without incurring significant outbound traffic costs, as it's included in the price and quite affordable. Compared to managing several instances implemented in different locations, it proves to be much more cost-effective. The exact ROI depends on the use case. Still, for scenarios like hosting a website that requires global accessibility, it can lead to significant savings, potentially up to 50% or more compared to alternative solutions.

The product has a mid-range pricing.

The security features have helped to protect the content. It is an expensive product with valuable features. I rate it an 8.

We use the solution to build social media solutions. They distribute the short videos using the cloud.

CloudFront is good, comparing all aspects of the platform. It has built-in DDoS protection, which protects against DDoS attacks.

Support needs to be enhanced.

I have been using Amazon CloudFront for 3 years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

10,000-20,000 users are using this solution, but it dropped these days.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

We have basic customer service support. We usually use chat or call. It goes first to non-technical people, like salespeople or supports agents, who then forward the cases to a technical person.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy. You can do it on the dashboard itself. It requires minimal experience.

It takes five to ten minutes to deploy.

We have private pricing on AWS. We get a fifty percent discount.

I recommend the solution. It has good services. It is scalable and cost-effective. We can add a graph on the other security on top of Cloudflare.

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