AWS CloudFormation Reviews

AWS Cloud automation supports the creation of only AWS resources, and we use it to reduce the time needed to create resources. We create template files inside AWS CloudFormation to create multiple resources in AWS, such as EC2, S3, RDS, or Lambda functions. When we apply those files, the resources are created parallelly, reducing the time needed to create them.

AWS Cloud automation reduces the time needed to create AWS resources.

When I used AWS CloudFormation, I wrote the CloudFormation file. It would help all users if AWS improved the auto-generation of the CloudFormation file.

I have been using AWS CloudFormation for one year. 

I have not faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 10 to 15 users are using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support is faster and better than that of other cloud providers.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is neither easy nor difficult.

AWS CloudFormation's pricing is cheaper than that of other cloud providers.

I would recommend AWS CloudFormation to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven 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.

I use it to automate the creation of infrastructure using AWS CloudFormation templates. In my project, I must create infrastructure for SaaS-based applications hosted in the AWS cloud. Whenever I onboard a new customer, I need to create the same architectural infrastructure for them, as it's a multitenant architecture, so a lot of the setup remains the same.

By using AWS CloudFormation, I can automate tasks like creating VPCs and load balancers instead of doing them manually each time. The features I like most include improved scalability, resource management, ease of deployment, template creation, and resource provisioning.

There are some limitations with JSON, as the code is written in JSON, which doesn't support commands, looping, or conditionals. This can make the code difficult to read and share across teams. Moreover, the tool only supports AWS. 

Another challenge is related to cost, which I feel could be reduced as it's a bit on the higher side. Additionally, the documentation could be improved, as there is room for enhancement.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I haven't faced any stability issues with AWS CloudFormation, and I would rate its stability as nine out of ten.

As for scalability, I see improved scalability with no issues, and I would rate it an eight out of ten. In my organization, around 18 people are using AWS CloudFormation.

AWS support is fine and prompt. It is paid. 

The initial setup is quite easy, like filling out a form and submitting it, making the deployment straightforward.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten and would recommend it to others. 

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 use AWS CloudFormation for any migration tasks, such as service catalog services, Amazon EC2 instances, and load balancers.

The solution can be deployed on-premise, such as in data centers, and on the cloud, such as VPNs and gateways.

The most valuable features of AWS CloudFormation are all the resources documentation is located in one location, simple resource reverting, and ease of use of the full package for new users. 

The conditions that can be added in AWS CloudFormation are not as powerful as any programming language.

I have been using AWS CloudFormation for approximately four years.

The solution has been working well.

We have approximately three people using the solutions.

My clients have used AWS CloudFormation support. 

I have used Terraform and it has similar benefits as AWS CloudFormation. We are using AWS CloudFormation mainly because all of the other services we use are from Amazon AWS.

We had a vendor that set up the solution for our company.

If you compared serverless and container-based, serverless is less expensive. If you use certain instances the price can increase and become too expensive.

I rate AWS CloudFormation a seven out of ten.

We support multiple internal developers and deploy and create new S3 buckets for them. We create new users and groups and also create the SNSQS for them. We also support multiple services like creating the Lambda function and have a principle of maintaining the correct privilege for the user. So we manage the AWS service in our organization and deploy the AWS CloudFormation templates to create that kind of AWS service.

It is easy to work from the console and deploy new database services. It is very user-friendly.

Creating the inline policies is not great, and they need to maintain it on a higher level. They create a discrepancy between multiple templates when we do the numbering of those stacks using AWS CloudFormation templates. When we created those stacks in my old organization, a bulk of stacks were automatically wrongly numbered. The filtering of those stacks was painful on the AWS CloudFormation site. I prefer Terraform to manage that.

We have been using this solution for a year at my organization, and I deploy the CloudFormation templates. I write them from scratch, and I deploy them. I extensively used it when I was working on the other cloud. We use the template format version from 2010. It is also deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable to an extent, and I rate the scalability a five out of ten. Five DevOps people use this solution.

We've used technical support, and I would rate them a seven out of ten.

I am unsure why we chose AWS CloudFormation, but we later realized that HashiCorp Terraform had more capability than the AWS CloudFormation templates. Initially, it was highly suggested by AWS to make use of CloudFormation at that time, so we started using it.

The initial setup is easy and not tough. I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten.

I don't remember the exact usage cost, but it isn't that expensive.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. It loses three points because of the disadvantage of the naming convention and the stack. Regarding advice, I would be careful when creating the stacks. There should be a proper naming convention that needs to be followed. If there isn't, the stacks will be more painful using the AWS CloudFormation.

We use CloudFormation for deploying solutions. It's tested manually and then we write a script for CloudFormation. We then copy all the configurations that are needed to automate the process of bringing it to the cloud.

Scripting does just about everything needed to accomplish the task of reinstalling something from scratch. It's the combination of features that's important.  CloudFormation allows us to get the original system up and running in a much shorter time.

I'd like to see a better GUI than we currently have which is basically a script you write. If they were to add graphical components that would enable animation of the installation procedure it would be icing on the cake. We'd be able to preview the installation and visually see what's happening, whether or not anything is missing, and whether you can run parts of the installation in parallel.

I've used this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very scalable. We have some clients with dozens of users and others with thousands of users. 

We've had some experience with technical support and they are very good. 

Positive

The number of people required for the deployment and maintenance of CloudFormation depends on the complexity of the implementation. Deployment involves thorough testing and can be a little complex.

A company can lose a lot of money if a site goes down. CloudFormation helps prevent that loss by bringing things back to working order very quickly.

We chose CloudFormation because it's native to AWS and it's easier to script than Ansible. We use Ansible for taking care of the nitty-gritty details that CloudFormation is not geared towards.

It's important to be aware of the things this solution is appropriate for. We learned the hard way that for our more detailed needs we need to use Ansible. Don't expect CloudFormation to take care of everything. It sets things initially, and then Ansible runs local scripts to take care of the details.