Amazon QuickSight Reviews

We run as a part of our agriculture platform, a lot of web apps and mobile apps. Amazon QuickSight is used in the backend for analytics and data analysis.

We are using Amazon QuickSight as we see at least 30% time savings.

Amazon QuickSight is a SaaS platform where we can run queries and get analytics without installing any software. It works well with the AWS ecosystem.

The cost of queries is very high. Improvements in drill-down ability and evolving it as an OLAP tool would help more.

We have been using it for about one year.

Amazon QuickSight has been stable in the past year.

Our dataset is not very large, so we haven't had scalability issues yet.

Support is satisfactory. Amazon support deserves ten points out of ten.

Positive

For log management, we use an in-house solution and not any third-party product right now.

No installation is required for Amazon QuickSight. Amazon maintains the service.

We see at least 30% time savings.

Competition pricing is high for query processing, however, the Data Lake cost is nominal as it is on top of S3.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We used it to analyze customer usage data within our application. We were consolidating data on user behavior and status, then presenting it to different audiences, such as executives and account managers.

For building executive dashboards, especially when you don't require extensive drill-downs, QuickSight is a good option. However, if you need in-depth drill-down capabilities, Power BI is more flexible at this point.

It helped with visualization purposes. We primarily used charts – pie charts and graphs – which were helpful. Also, the filters were quite useful.

The integration is very seamless. We stored our result CSV files in S3 and connected directly from there.

Compared to Power BI, I felt QuickSight lacks some features, like delayed drill-downs.

Drill-downs were the main area where we found QuickSight lacking. Especially for root cause analysis, the ability to drill down from a high-level problem to its root is crucial. Aside from that, QuickSight is a good service.

I have experience with this product. I have been using it for three to four months. 

It was a stable product. 

We haven't tested it with extremely large datasets, but based on documentation and our experience with other AWS services, we're pretty confident it's scalable.

We have multiple products. Some products have been using QuickSight for a couple of years. We were exploring the feasibility of migrating other products that use different BI tools to QuickSight. So, the number of users varied between products.

I never needed to connect with the support. We were able to manage everything using the provided manuals, technical guides, and other resources. We never needed to escalate anything to their support team.

Compared to Power BI, I felt QuickSight lacks some features, like delayed drill-downs. However, I found the data refresh rate to be faster than Power BI. This means we could update data more frequently throughout the day.

There are pros and cons.

We were already using different BI tools – Tableau, IBM Cognos, and others. Exploring QuickSight was mainly because we wanted to align more with AWS services. 

Feature-wise, the BI tools we used were fairly comparable, so QuickSight didn't stand out in that regard.

Amazon QuickSight was easy to set up. 

Our DevOps team handles that. I (my team) primarily manage the reports.

My company had a corporate discount and other arrangements, so I'm not familiar with the standard pricing.

While there are challenges with drill-downs, I would definitely recommend QuickSight for in-app reporting and executive dashboards.

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

Amazon QuickSight is a business intelligence tool that gives the user all kinds of reports, like real-time and historical reporting. It allows you to showcase various reports and analytics and even trigger some limited actions. It's primarily designed for advisors or analysts.

I've used it extensively for Amazon Connect reporting.  There are many tools that can integrate with Amazon Connect for reporting, but since Amazon Connect lacks native customization features, one way to customize reporting is to use QuickSight. 

Compared to other reporting tools, it is very effective but does require an understanding of certain concepts in QuickSight. This understanding is crucial for creating dimensions, changing metrics, and visualizing reports. If someone has a thorough knowledge of QuickSight, it is a very good tool that allows for significant customization. 

Recently, with AI integrations coming into play, QuickSight has gained a lot of new features, particularly in its integration with Amazon services and the ability to write queries using simple English. This is a fantastic feature that has helped me create and deploy reports more quickly.

One area is that integrating data from different sources into QuickSight can be a bit tricky, especially with Amazon Connect. To get data flowing, you need to use two additional services and configure them correctly. 

The setup isn't straightforward and can be time-consuming.

Secondly, while QuickSight is a BI tool, it lacks features to suggest actions or integrate with other systems to turn it into more than just a data display tool.

Additionally, from a user perspective, QuickSight is easy to use if you have analytics experience. For beginners, it takes more time to understand the mechanics, visualizations, and overall functionality. 

Lastly, integration with Amazon Connect can be unstable. Changes on the Amazon Connect side can impact datasets in QuickSight, causing reporting failures. These are some of the drawbacks that needs improvement. 

I have been using it for three years. 

In previous deployments, Amazon Connect was used by all the supervisors and some of the C-suite executives who were actually using Connect. All those supervisors, C-suite people, and even team leaders in the contact centers used QuickSight for their day-to-day operations. 

They relied on it to understand their dashboards, check wallboards, and monitor how graphs showcase the different performances of the agents and even the voicebots at times. 

In a call center with around 300 total, I have seen 20  to 25+ QuickSight users, which includes C-suite people as well, like the head of the call center and the head of business operations.

It's affordable compared to other long-term contractor business tools available in the market. There are cost advantages with QuickSight, but it needs to be configured properly to realize these savings and get the most out of the platform at a lesser cost.

For first-time users, it's crucial to understand the use case first. Why do we need to use QuickSight? It's like a Lego block, capable of constructing a lot. So, determine whether QuickSight is really necessary for your use case. 

If QuickSight is chosen, take advantage of Amazon's documentation to learn about its strengths and capabilities. Understand the different dimensions, metrics, visualizations it supports, and the various fields and objects. Learn how it integrates with data sources. Knowing these aspects well will help you launch your projects faster and more easily.

Based on my personal experience with the usage and UI, I would rate it around a five out of ten. There are many developments that could still be made in QuickSight, especially in the way it integrates.

We generate reports from QuickSight, and the data is stored in an S3 bucket.

The graph charts, pie charts, and box plots are valuable.

In one of the use cases, we had to embed the dashboard into the client application. The embedding function doesn’t work well. The solution must be more user-friendly. I have also written some questions on the community page.

I have been using the solution for the last three years.

I rate the tool’s stability a six out of ten. Some functionalities are not available in the product. It is not as mature as Tableau and Power BI.

I rate the tool’s scalability a six out of ten. The product is serverless. It can be scaled, but it takes time based on the workload and the data that needs to be fed from the dashboard. Around 500 people use the product in our organization.

I have raised around three tickets. I get responses from the support team.

Neutral

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The deployment took hardly two to three hours. We needed three people to deploy the product.

The solution’s price is fine. I rate the pricing a six out of ten. The pricing depends on the number of authors and readers we need.

I evaluated Tableau and Power BI, but our clients’ setup was established on AWS, so they preferred Amazon QuickSight.

People are using the tool without any problems. Overall, I rate the product a six out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for basic reporting, charts, and graphs.

There is no installation required. It is browser-based. 

We like that you can look at groups, users, and like that we can take advantage of column-level and row-level restrictions.

The SpiceDB capacity is pretty large compared to other contemporary options, including competitive software like Power BI, Tableau, etc. It has better performance with respect to large data sets.

The solution is simple to implement. 

Managers can build a dashboard, and over a period of time, they can build very complex dashboards as well. 

It is easy to learn. There is a decent level of documentation already available around QuickSight. There are multiple YouTube channels, videos, and tutorials available, and there is a QuickSight community from where you can get help. This helps users work with the basic functionality of QuickSight.

The solution is stable.

It is quite scalable. 

I just want a few more features to be added. We'd like an increase in the number of visuals, and we find the graphs are still very restricted.

We need reporting around telementary use and QuickSight users, including which user is opening which dashboard, at what time, and for how long he is using the dashboard. They built reader access based on the session. However, they don't report it anywhere.

I was expecting this very basic thing, yet it has not been rolled out. In order to know which user is opening which dashboard and at what time, I have to basically deep dive into the CloudTrail log. Even there, it's not a very detailed log. It does not give you an idea about the session or session duration. It only gives you an idea about whether a dashboard was loaded or not. 

Currently, auto-reporting is limited to some 30 times a day. As it is, if you want to set a data set to get it refreshed every half an hour, you cannot achieve it. We would like to have more auto-reporting.

I've used the solution for three to four years. 

Stability-wise, it is decent. It's reliable. There are no bigs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable. 

There are data sets where I have millions of records, and the size of the data set is beyond 100 GB as well.

We have more than 500 users on the solution currently.

There is a lot of documentation available that can help users learn the solution and troubleshoot.

On multiple occasions, I have had to check with the AWS support regarding QuickSight, and the support is pretty decent around it.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution.

I did work with Power BI. Power BI had too many visuals. It's pretty mature, however. Power BI is a very old reporting tool. It has great functionality, yet it is costlier. Still, it is not very scalable as it is limited to 10 GB only. Whereas in QuickSight, you can have beyond 10 GB easily. A few data sets we have are beyond 110 GB.

The solution is online; you don't have to install anything. It's user-friendly so it is easy to get started. If you have users on your AWS account, you can just enable QuickSight access for them.

User management is very easy. 

The ROI a company might se depends on how they are using it. It's a service. If you are not using it efficiently, then obviously, the ROI would be lower.

It's not a one-time purchase.

It's like they build you on three fronts. One is the SpiceDB capacity that you buy. Another is the author account you create in QuickSight and the reader's account. For an author account and SpiceDB capacity, there is a fixed charge. For the author, it's $24 per month. For SpiceDB capacity, it's somewhere at around $0.30 per GB per month. For the reader account, there is no charge. It's pay per session, and I don't know the price per session. 

You need to be aware of how you have it set up. Even though we have, let's say, 50 authors, for example, out of those 50 authors, only two or three authors were creating dashboards. The rest of the authors were sitting idle. At that point, we got billed unnecessarily. Later on, we figured it out, and we removed the unnecessary authors.

We're a customer and end-user.

One big lesson that I have learned is that first, you identify what kind of reporting you want to do. Then, just go and check whether that kind of reporting is already available in QuickSight or not. If yes, then you have to think about the cost. It's pretty much in your face, and you can precalculate it without any issue, and then you have to just play around with a couple of average users.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I am a consultant and an Amazon partner and reseller advising clients about which solution they should seriously focus on. For the current project, I did a comparison on PeerSpot to show them substantial information about which of the platforms is the one which they should prefer because each of them has different strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons.

The solution is very quick to turn around and integrate. You can do everything well on the QuickSight platform.

The platform’s pricing is a bit hard because even though you get a 30-day trial, you have a standard edition that's only in-house. The product is quite expensive because the price is too close to QlikView's prices but it does not ring as well as QlikView.

I am no professional analytics person, but as a developer and consultant, I think the quality of the product can be improved and be made more feature rich as well. They could do some predictive analytics, and have their graphics be a bit better to make it look nicer.

I also think they should focus on QuickSight as a separate line of business so they can generate better revenue. I have seen many companies bought over that just rest on their laurels and do not show substantial improvement in terms of features or performance like a company that has to fight tooth and nail for their sales.

I have been using Amazon QuickSight for around three months now.

The performance of the solution is quite alright and straightforward. Although QuickSight is at the testing level for us, the solution is responsive enough.

The solution is moderately stable. However, I am not very convinced about the stability since I have yet to see a huge implementation of the solution, for over 5,000 viewers for instance.

I have not contacted the support team yet, and neither have I faced any problems with the solution so far. However, I have some local Amazon staff contacts whom I can reach out to if there's any issue.

I worked with QlikView as a part of their evaluation committee about a decade ago.

From what I see so far, it's very easy to start up. Amazon QuickSight is relatively easy to configure, but I think they could optimize it a bit more. The product is in a transition as they're integrating with AWS, so the authentication part gets a bit messy.

There are no additional license fees apart from the standard licensing fees. However, the standard license is meant only for internal users and not for free readers. That's a problem, because to have free viewers, you need to escalate up to the enterprise license which ideally should not be the case.

In addition to QuickSight, I am also evaluating other options like Tableau and QlikView as these solutions are very well evaluated.

My advice is to look at your use case, look at your complexities, the sophistication of reporting that you need, and the end results of what you want. Do you have a simple reporting need? Do you get straightforward reporting requests? Or do you need something more professional and higher-end? Based on these parameters, make the decision. I would rate the solution a six and a half out of ten.

We use Amazon QuickSight for our internal reporting.

A valuable feature of Amazon QuickSight is that it's a cloud-native service provided by AWS. As all platforms within my company run on AWS, that's the leverage of Amazon QuickSight.

Amazon QuickSight is also easy to use, and I find the native connectors from AWS valuable as well.

Right now, you can't use Amazon QuickSight on other cloud providers, so I'd like it to have availability on other cloud providers. This is an area for improvement in the product.

What I'd like to see in Amazon QuickSight in the future is a distributed centralized system where I can manage all reports in one place, and for Amazon QuickSight to become reporting as a service.

I've been using Amazon QuickSight for almost two years now.

Amazon QuickSight is a stable product because it's an AWS native, so it has all the data reconciliation taken care of by AWS. You won't need to worry about stability in Amazon QuickSight.

Amazon QuickSight is a scalable product.

I haven't contacted the technical support team for Amazon QuickSight at this point.

As our platform is on AWS, we decided to go with the native services of AWS which includes Amazon QuickSight.

Setting up Amazon QuickSight was so easy because Amazon provided complete documentation on how to do it.

You can deploy Amazon QuickSight within hours if you're quite familiar with the product, so it all depends on your experience and hands-on knowledge of AWS.

The implementation for Amazon QuickSight was done in-house. I even did some installations myself.

The Amazon QuickSight licensing model my company's on is pay-as-you-go, but I wouldn't be able to give the figures because that's handled by the finance department.

I'm an enterprise architect, and I work for a service desk company, so within the company, people use many other tools for day-to-day activities, such as tools for data ignitions, data orchestrations, data migration, big data, platform management, etc.

Currently, I'm using Amazon QuickSight for semantic layers. There's no specific version for the solution because it's cloud-based and it's managed by Amazon.

My advice, if you're looking to implement Amazon QuickSight, is that if your reporting is too slow and you're using an AWS platform, I'd recommend Amazon QuickSight. If you're reporting with multiple data sources coming from different clouds, then you should go with a different tool.

My rating for Amazon QuickSight depends on the data sources I have, the number of reports I'm going to build, the number of users that require reporting, and the cost. For my current environment, Amazon QuickSight is the best, though it won't be the best for everybody. I'm rating it based on my requirements, and because it meets my requirements, so my rating for it is nine out of ten. It's the perfect solution for my company currently.

My company has a partnership with Amazon.

Our primary use case bank in the financial sector, we review the information and make some validation with the legacy system and a book of indicators of KPIs with directors and CEOs.

The data is very powerful and the splice is fast.

The most valuable feature I have found is the low-level securities are very easy to use. The power of calculation with variables or building formulas and you can use datasets that are incremental updates. It is powerful and fast. You do not need to update all the data, you can use a partial update. It is something you use a lot in the industry.

I would like to see a feature that allows us to save a draft version before making it public and publishing it. This draft option would allow for comments to be made and those comments to be reviewed. Changes could be made and then published to the public.

I have been using Amazon QuickSight for the past two years.

The stability is excellent. Only one time in two years was the service not working and that was for an hour.

There is very good scalability and large capacity.

Technical support is very good. You have support and a forum where you can search for help and new ways to use it.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

The implementation was done in-house. The deployment usually takes one week to ten days.

The pricing is cost-effective with a good plan.

You can use it with confidence and you can trust in a product that is evolving very fast. It is better than Tableau, which is another leader in the market. Amazon QuickSight is easy to use and cost-effective. On a scale of one to ten, I would give Amazon QuickSight an eight.