AWS CloudFormation Reviews

The product uses a simple JSON file format, so it's easy for a beginner to start. But you can use Terraform once you get good hands-on experience and know the infrastructure and resources well.

Using JSON templates in AWS CloudFormation has improved my infrastructure management because it's simple. We can have these templates in multiple setup repositories, which makes it easy for us to collaborate at a specific level.

I prefer Terraform over AWS CloudFormation because AWS CloudFormation is specific to just AWS. But if I want to use a multi-cloud or hybrid setup, then Terraform works better. It uses a simple language, HCL. So, if you learn HCL, you can manage your infrastructures across different cloud providers. You don't need to be specific to one cloud provider.

I prefer Terraform over CloudFormation, so I would rather work with Terraform for deployments. It's easier and simpler to perform deployments with Terraform in my experience.

I haven't encountered any stability issues. 

From my experience with Amazon's customer support, it's good. We usually don't need to connect directly with the Amazon support team. We have specific customer relationship managers as well as a dedicated team that we pay for. We have a support plan in place.

We have both a support plan and a partner development manager who manages the AWS partnerships between our organization and AWS. So we don't have any big issues with support. The partnership manager helps maintain our relationship with AWS.

The tool's pricing depends on the page model. 

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten and would recommend it to others. 

It allows us to use infrastructure as code. We write code to deploy resources on AWS. While we primarily use Terraform for deploying AWS resources, there are situations where we use CloudFormation stacks. It depends on the client's preference.

We have deployment pipelines set up to manage resources across multiple environments and accounts. When we want to deploy or modify something, we specify the target account ID and details within the deployment configuration. Changes to our code repository trigger the pipeline, which then executes actions on those specific accounts.

When it comes to automating things, the pipeline needs preparation for deployment. AWS calls this CodePipeline. In my last project, we used CodePipeline, though for CI/CD, we used Jenkins rather than AWS solutions. AWS CodePipeline is similar to Jenkins or GitHub Actions. 

Whenever you make changes to your CloudFormation source code, it will trigger the pipeline in CodePipeline. Our pipeline has steps for source control, build, test, and finally, deployment. This AWS DevOps functionality is the most valuable feature for automating things.

I appreciate the flexibility of infrastructure as code. With CloudFormation, we can define ground rules, control usage limits, and scale our infrastructure up or down programmatically. Having this level of control through code on infra is a major benefit. That's the beauty of CloudFormation.  

If you work with multiple cloud providers, it's better to go with Terraform. CloudFormation stacks cannot be used for multiple vendors. For example, you cannot create resources for Azure or Google Cloud Platform (GCP) using a CloudFormation stack.

I have been using it for the past two and a half years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. I haven't faced any issues with the stability yet. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The reason for the eight is that we cannot directly integrate Control Tower with CloudFormation. For different services, AWS offers specific resources for scalability. For example, with EC2, we use Auto Scaling Groups to scale instances based on traffic or usage.

Within a CloudFormation stack, we can set up and create an Auto Scaling Group. So indirectly, CloudFormation facilitates the scaling of other resources, even though the stack itself isn't inherently scalable.

In my organization, there are probably around 800 to 1000 users working with AWS in general.

We are a service provider. We work with AWS as a service provider. Our clients include Toyota, BMW Canada, and BMW Germany. I recently worked with Vira Mobility in the US, and now I'm working in the banking sector. We provide CloudFormation to manage our clients' cloud infrastructure.

Customer service and support are available. If we raise tickets for issues on AWS, they will contact us as soon as possible. I think it's good. 

And, if we face any issues, they will resolve them quite well. The communication is also good.

Positive

For Toyota, we used Terraform. For BMW, we also used Terraform. For some FinOps purposes, we use CloudFormation stacks to have resources under control. 

However, in most cases, we use Terraform for infrastructure management and deployment. Currently, I'm onboarding to a new project where they use CloudFormation more heavily than Terraform.

So, I've mostly worked on Terraform. I use CloudFormation stacks purely for specific tasks that Terraform cannot offer.

The initial setup depends on how large your infrastructure is. If the infrastructure is small, it won't be too tough. But if the infrastructure is huge and we need to deploy across multiple accounts, like 20 to 30, then it's going to be quite difficult. 

Also, keep in mind that we can't use CloudFormation to create organization member accounts within AWS Control Tower. Aside from that, the initial setup is easier if you know what you're doing. For a beginner, it's kind of difficult. It might be better to start with Terraform as it's easier than CloudFormation.

So, the user does need some knowledge in order to do it.

AWS CloudFormation integrates with the existing CI/CD pipeline.

In CloudFormation, we configure our CodePipeline settings. Whenever you make changes to the source code, this triggers the pipeline. We can set this up in the AWS console. You can configure it to check your source code every 10 to 20 seconds. If there are changes, it will trigger the pipeline.

There's a particular team, the FinOps team, that handles the calculation of pricing. We do sometimes check the pricing for cost optimization purposes.

So, it's actually cheaper. In general, pricing within AWS is relatively affordable.

Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten. It's quite similar to Terraform and easy to manage – especially if you know AWS well. The thing is, the CloudFormation stack is going to create the resources, so knowledge of AWS is important. Overall, it's actually good.

If you are using only a single cloud provider, you can go with CloudFormation. For those focused solely on AWS, it's a good option.

However, if you work with multiple cloud providers, it's better to go with Terraform. CloudFormation stacks cannot be used for multiple vendors. For example, you cannot create resources for Azure or Google Cloud Platform (GCP) using a CloudFormation stack.

AWS CloudFormation is infrastructure as Code specific to AWS. It allows companies invested in AWS to codify their infrastructure, enabling faster deployment, tracking drift, and gaining visibility into the environment through the templates. This facilitates easy deployment in different regions.

Since AWS CloudFormation integrates well with the AWS platform, it facilitates faster deployment. Building templates for AWS services within the solution is also straightforward, making the process easier.

I would say the versioning feature is particularly useful. Ensuring that we have the right version and being able to track changes made by enabling versioning is valuable. Additionally, the ability to roll back to a previous stack in case of a bad update is good. 

We primarily utilize AWS S3 buckets for large-scale deployments to store and maintain our templates. We keep a copy of the templates in a restricted bucket. We deploy these templates using AWS CloudFormation, which provides a console for quick deployment. During deployment, we can monitor the provisioning results and quickly make any necessary changes.

The product should be made cloud-agnostic, allowing users to deploy the same environment with minimal tweaks across different cloud platforms, similar to Terraform. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have the ability to manage templates outside of the AWS environment. 

You need an enterprise agreement with AWS, meaning your company pays for the services. AWS delivers daily responses in the production environment, typically within five to ten minutes. However, in non-production environments, it might take up to 24 hours. Therefore, there could be delays in non-production environments, which may pause operations for a while.

Primarily, I use Terraform because I work across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud platforms. Terraform is more portable across different cloud providers than AWS CloudFormation, which is specific to AWS.

The tool's deployment depends on the person's knowledge and experience, but overall, I find it pretty easy to set up. Additionally, AWS offers various templates for various services within its platform. It doesn't require many resources to deploy. It does require some maintenance in terms of adding and removing resources or adjusting the environment to meet current specifications. However, maintaining the software or the template backbone falls within AWS's purview.

The tool is free for the AWS environment. 

I recommend AWS CloudFormation to any company that is heavily invested in AWS. However, for companies operating across multiple clouds or adopting a hybrid on-premise and cloud solution, I would not recommend it. I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

We use AWS CloudFormation to build resources. 

AWS CloudFormation has automated the resource-building process, thereby removing the scope of human errors. We can tag the resources which help the billing process. 

I like the tool's updation capability for versions. The solution is good for scalability as well. 

The code we write in AWS CloudFormation is pretty big compared to Terraform. We need to have more modules in the solution. A library should also be there where we can save code lines. A dashboard feature would be good for designers. 

I have been working with the product since 2016. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate AWS CloudFormation's scalability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is a service by AWS and does not involve deployment. We have installed the tool over the cloud. 

The solution's cost is normal, neither cheap nor expensive. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. You need to leverage AWS CloudFormation as much as possible to automate workflows.

We are currently using AWS CloudFormation to build the infrastructure stack for customers.

AWS CloudFormation enables a copy of infrastructure to be set up AWS, saving time in our daily routine.

The ability to quickly run up CloudFormation in AWS and the template validation function are the most valuable features.

The ability to convert it easily to other code which can be used for on-premises infrastructure would be a beneficial improvement. 

Also, improving the quality of support would be helpful.

I have been using AWS CloudFormation ever since the last time we spoke.

Stability is rated ten out of ten. It is very stable.

Scalability is rated eight out of ten, indicating it is pretty scalable.

Technical support from Amazon is rated seven out of ten. The response time and quality of support could be improved.

Neutral

The initial setup requires a certain level of basic knowledge to leverage it. The basic setup can be done in-house.

CloudFormation itself is not priced. The service will enable you to spin up infrastructure, which gets priced as part of the AWS license.

Azure is a main competitor on the market, particularly dedicated to the Azure Stack.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use AWS CloudFormation to automate our deployment processes within the AWS environment. It makes the process easier to manage.

With CloudFormation, there is no need to use complicated coding. Instead, you define your infrastructure using a straightforward format called YAML, which resembles plain English rather than intricate code. Additionally, it offers extensive support and documentation, making it even easier to understand.

They could improve the product's capability to handle circular dependencies more effectively. Currently, we encounter errors when deploying interdependent resources.

We have been using AWS CloudFormation for two years.

The initial setup of CloudFormation was very straightforward, to the point where even individuals with no coding background can easily understand the process. The deployment time depends on the amount of resources. It might require only a minute to complete if you have ten resources. However, if you have 100 resources, it could take two hours.

In a recent project, we had to deploy over 500 resources on AWS. Without CloudFormation, this would have been a time-consuming process, likely taking several days to complete manually through the console. Additionally, if we needed to remove the deployment, it would have required a considerable amount of time and a team of ten people. However, by using this platform, we were able to streamline the entire process. It allowed us to deploy everything with just one click. 

The change set feature provides efficient management of updates. Suppose you've deployed 500 resources but only need to modify 100, you can leverage the change set functionality to identify and apply these modifications. It automatically detects the necessary changes, creates a distinct change set, and deploys only the required updates.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

It serves as an automation framework for deploying infrastructure by using templates.

The most beneficial aspect lies in its capability to handle input acquisition and assessment. This feature allows users to input information, essentially functioning as a vendor, where values can be inserted and interest can be derived from the system.

Including certain examples of templates would be advantageous.

I have been working with for four years.

It is very stable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate its scalability capabilities nine out of ten. Our team exclusively relies on CloudFormation templates, and it consists of five to six individuals.

The level of technical support provided by AWS is excellent. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

While currently working with Azure, we utilize distinct solutions tailored to the platform. However, it's worth noting that when we were using AWS previously, CloudFormation stood out as the preferred and superior choice for configuration.

The initial setup was fairly easy and I would rate it nine out of ten.

We handled the deployment internally with a team of four or five members. While maintenance typically only needs one person, it is currently managed by multiple individuals.

The pricing is not notably high. I would rate it two out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

I use AWS CloudFormation to create various types of resources like app servers, web servers, and S3 buckets. I know how to deploy these resources and understand how CloudFormation works, including best practices and different configuration options.

What I like best about AWS CloudFormation is that it is a quick and simple way to deploy various applications, like WordPress. You can use predefined templates, and if you are new to CloudFormation, it is easy to get started without much stress.

One area where AWS CloudFormation could improve is by offering more flexibility in creating custom templates. Currently, you can use default templates, but having easier ways to design your own templates, whether in JSON or YAML format, would be a helpful enhancement for users.

I have been using AWS CloudFormation for a year and a half.

It is a stable solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability. We have not had any issues with it.

It is a highly scalable solution. I would give the scalability a ten out of ten. In our organization, we don't have an exact user count, but AWS CloudFormation is widely used and popular. It is appreciated for its speed and user-friendliness when using template scripts with parameters. It also enhances security with encryption and permission features. CloudFormation is flexible for making infrastructure changes and is considered a valuable asset for our organization.

I had some issues with the technical support, but they were mainly because I had some experience with AWS CloudFormation. When creating a new stack and provisioning resources, you need to be careful with services that require global uniqueness, like S3 bucket names. If you don't use unique names in your code or template, it can cause errors. If you are not familiar with this, you might contact support, but often it is a simple fix by just changing the name yourself. So, having some technical know-how can help you avoid unnecessary support calls.

The initial setup of AWS CloudFormation is very easy and straightforward; you don't need any complex configurations or proxies. It takes less than a minute to deploy. I would rate the easiness of the setup a nine out of ten. If you receive clear instructions, using AWS CloudFormation is pretty straightforward. However, if you have to figure things out on your own, having some experience is important. Without experience, you might create resources that cause issues and encounter various challenges along the way.

My advice to new users is to have some prior knowledge before using AWS services. It is important to understand these concepts to make the most of AWS. I love AWS because it makes resource provisioning easier, especially with the user-friendly dashboard for creating various things. Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten.

It helps to automate the process of creating and managing AWS resources. It allows defining the infrastructure as code using templates, which describe the desired state of the infrastructure. This approach makes it easy to replicate environments, track changes, and perform repeatable deployments.

It enables fast and efficient deployment of AWS resources and configurations through code templates. It facilitates sharing and deploying infrastructure configurations across different environments and locations. It provides automated resource management, allowing for updates and rollbacks to be easily managed.

Its infrastructure as code approach is the most valuable.

AWS CloudFormation allows you to use the code templates written in JSON and YAML, but not directly in Python. Adding this feature would be beneficial. You may use Python alongside CloudFormation for enhanced automation and management capabilities.

I have been using it for five years.

It offers good stability. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability capabilities eight out of ten.

The initial setup was relatively straightforward.

We witnessed a return on investment.

It provides assurance and confidence in the deployment of the environment, due to its infrastructure as code mode. It allows easy tracking of the changes, reviewing configurations, and ensuring that it aligns with requirements and best practices. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is mapping. We have used AWS CloudFormation and its components. We have used the mapping block resources, like AMI, to a particular region. The mapping block enables us to map keys to a corresponding name value that we specify in a conditional parameter. We have also used the output block to import resources, such as a security group, from one CloudFormation template to another. In a template, the output section describes the output value we can use in other stacks or the value returned when we need to review my stack properties.

Firstly the solution is reusable. The CloudFormation template can be reused to create multiple stacks, reducing duplications and improving our infrastructure and the parameter section maintainability. The parameter section is so essential and assists with automation. So with a single click, most of the resources have been deployed in the environment we want.

The parameter section is valuable.

A few areas need improvement, like enhancing error handling and integrating with other AWS services.

We have been using the solution for approximately three years.

I rate the stability as eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable. However, sometimes the issue is that it is not cloud agnostic. It's only used in AWS, unlike other solutions using a multi-cloud. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I rate the price an eight out of ten, with ten being the most expensive.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but error-handling features can be improved.