Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon AWS CloudSearch vs Elastic Search comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon AWS CloudSearch
Ranking in Search as a Service
9th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Elastic Search
Ranking in Search as a Service
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
Indexing and Search (1st), Cloud Data Integration (6th), Vector Databases (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Search as a Service category, the mindshare of Amazon AWS CloudSearch is 5.3%, down from 9.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Elastic Search is 17.9%, up from 14.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Search as a Service Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Elastic Search17.9%
Amazon AWS CloudSearch5.3%
Other76.8%
Search as a Service
 

Featured Reviews

HarishMahanta - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr PeopleSoft Consultant at People Tech
A reasonably priced solution that provides scalability, stability, reliability, and security
In terms of what needs improvement, I would say that it needs to keep its cost competitive in the market, especially in comparison to other clouds. Let's say we have various clouds in the market, like Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and AWS Cloud. However, security-wise, I don't think AWS is bad. It's good only, especially in comparison to Oracle Cloud, if you really use Oracle, while also considering the fact that PeopleSoft is an Oracle product. AWS is a separate cloud, and Oracle has its own cloud. If you are in a new PeopleSoft and Oracle and you are using a third-party cloud, it means it is not easy since we can't think it is easy. I mean, if you are using Oracle products and you are using Oracle Cloud, it will be easier for you. However, it has a cost in comparison to AWS. Oracle Cloud is too costly. According to region, we segregate because it depends on the organization's strength. Let's say your organization has 1,000 customers. In that case, on a daily basis, let's say one customer was released or discontinued using the product. Then, you have to remove the solution. However, if you use Oracle Cloud, that space will remain there. In the case of AWS, they will immediately cut down their space, meaning in terms of reuse ability, it will reduce the cost. In our case, AWS is the best in the market, actually. We have various clouds like Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure Cloud, the features of which are very different. There are a lot of features in AWS Cloud since I am not in the market providing service on the products. I am just using that tool to access our clients' database and deliver our day-to-day service. I interact with the clients regarding their issues, whatever they are facing. There is this one kind of interface we use to access things because they are in AWS Cloud. If your customer is in Oracle Cloud, then there will be a different approach to accessing it. In our case, we can use AWS or Oracle, so it doesn't matter to us.
Anurag Pal - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Search and aggregations have transformed how I manage and visualize complex real estate data
Elastic Search consumes lots of memory. You have to provide the heap size a lot if you want the best out of it. The major problem is when a company wants to use Elastic Search but it is at a startup stage. At a startup stage, there is a lot of funds to consider. However, their use case is that they have to use a pretty significant amount of data. For that, it is very expensive. For example, if you take OLTP-based databases in the current scenario, such as ClickHouse or Iceberg, you can do it on 4GB RAM also. Elastic Search is for analytical records. You have to do the analytics on it. According to me, as far as I have seen, people will start moving from Elastic Search sooner or later. Why? Because it is expensive. Another thing is that there is an open source available for that, such as ClickHouse. Around 2014 and 2012, there was only one competitor at that time, which was Solr. But now, not only is Solr there, but you can take ClickHouse and you have Iceberg also. How are we going to compete with them? There is also a fork of Elastic Search that is OpenSearch. As far as I have seen in lots of articles I am reading, users are using it as the ELK stack for logs and analyzing logs. That is not the exact use case. It can do more than that if used correctly. But as it involves lots of cost, people are shifting from Elastic Search to other sources. When I am talking about pricing, it is not only the server pricing. It is the amount of memory it is using. The pricing is basically the heap Java, which is taking memory. That is the major problem happening here. If we have to run an MVP, a client comes to me and says, "Anurag, we need to do a proof of concept. Can we do it if I can pay a 4GB or 16GB expense?" How can I suggest to them that a minimum of 16GB is needed for Elastic Search so that your proof of concept will be proved? In that case, what I have to suggest from the beginning is to go with Cassandra or at the initial stage, go with PostgreSQL. The problem is the memory it is taking. That is the only thing.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Amazon AWS CloudSearch is the cloud aspect. I do not need to have the physical infrastructure, everything is in the cloud."
"The best feature is its scalability in that Cloud is always on the fly."
"CDN service reduces latency when accessing our web application."
"The quality of the solution is good."
"It is remarkably efficient and beneficial."
"AWS CloudSearch's best features are good performance under high CPU and memory use, and ease of deployment and scaling."
"Document indexing, text-based search API, and Geospatial searches are all good features."
"I've found the solution to be very scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Elastic Enterprise Search is user behavior analysis."
"Logsign provides us with the capability to execute multiple queries according to our requirements. The indexing is very high, making it effective for storing and retrieving logs. The real-time analytics with Elastic benefits us due to the huge traffic volume in our organization, which reaches up to 60,000 requests per second. With logs of approximately 25 GB per day, manually analyzing traffic behavior, payloads, headers, user agents, and other details is impractical."
"The most valuable features are its user-friendly interface and seamless navigation."
"The best feature of Elastic Search is it does exactly what it says."
"The AI-based attribute tagging is a valuable feature."
"Big businesses cannot survive without Elastic Search because it gives us very good visibility and handles our use cases very well."
"We can easily collect all the data and view historical trends using the product. We can view the applications and identify the issues effectively."
"I value the feature that allows me to share the dashboards to different people with different levels of access."
 

Cons

"We'd like to see more database features."
"AWS CloudSearch's documentation isn't very clear. Also, the on-premise version of the solution is less stable than the cloud version."
"Index cleanup is sometimes painful. No easy way to clean indexes or a bulk of documents. Full indexing or regeneration of entire indexes sometimes gets stuck. In one instance, we had to delete the entire index and re-create it."
"Security is a concern but they're working on it."
"Latlon data type only supports single value per document. All other types support multiple values. We faced issues with this because we had scenarios where, for each document, we needed to store multiple latlon values for different geographical locations."
"The solution should improve the recovery aspects that it has on offer."
"A reboot should be enhanced."
"I would say that it needs to keep its cost competitive in the market, especially in comparison to other clouds."
"While Elastic Search is a good product, I see areas for improvement, particularly regarding the misconception that any amount of data can simply be dumped into Elastic Search."
"The UI point of view is not very powerful because it is dependent on Kibana."
"The GUI is the part of the program which has the most room for improvement."
"The price could be better. Kibana has some limitations in terms of the tablet to view event logs. I also have a high volume of data. On the initialization part, if you chose Kibana, you'll have some limitations. Kibana was primarily proposed as a log data reviewer to build applications to the viewer log data using Kibana. Then it became a virtualization tool, but it still has limitations from a developer's point of view."
"The solution has quite a steep learning curve. The usability and general user-friendliness could be improved. However, that is kind of typical with products that have a lot of flexibility, or a lot of capabilities. Sometimes having more choices makes things more complex. It makes it difficult to configure it, though. It's kind of a bitter pill that you have to swallow in the beginning and you really have to get through it."
"Elastic Enterprise Search's tech support is good but it could be improved."
"I would like to be able to do correlations between multiple indexes."
"There are some features lacking in ELK Elasticsearch."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our license costs around $4,000 per month."
"Amazon AWS CloudSearch charging is based on how many resources you consume or and the solution is known to be a bit expensive."
"We chose AWS because of its cost and stability."
"There was no license needed to use this solution."
"I'm not sure how much we pay a year. It might be around $30,000 a year."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one point is cheap, and ten points are expensive, I rate the pricing as medium or reasonable."
"In comparison to IBM and Microsoft, the pricing is more favorable."
"The pricing model is questionable and needs to be addressed because when you would like to have the security they charge per machine."
"We are using the free version and intend to upgrade."
"It can move from $10,000 US Dollars per year to any price based on how powerful you need the searches to be and the capacity in terms of storage and process."
"The tool is not expensive. Its licensing costs are yearly."
"We are paying $1,500 a month to use the solution. If you want to have endpoint protection you need to pay more."
"The cost varies based on factors like usage volume, network load, data storage size, and service utilization. If your usage isn't too extensive, the cost will be lower."
"we are using a licensed version of the product."
"Although the ELK Elasticsearch software is open-source, we buy the hardware."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Search as a Service solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Marketing Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business38
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about ELK Elasticsearch?
Logsign provides us with the capability to execute multiple queries according to our requirements. The indexing is very high, making it effective for storing and retrieving logs. The real-time anal...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ELK Elasticsearch?
On the subject of pricing, Elastic Search is very cost-efficient. You can host it on-premises, which would incur zero cost, or take it as a SaaS-based service, where the expenses remain minimal.
What needs improvement with ELK Elasticsearch?
From the UI point of view, we are using most probably Kibana, and I think they can do much better than that. That is something they can fine-tune a little bit, and then it will definitely be a good...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Elastic Enterprise Search, Swiftype, Elastic Cloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SmugMug
T-Mobile, Adobe, Booking.com, BMW, Telegraph Media Group, Cisco, Karbon, Deezer, NORBr, Labelbox, Fingerprint, Relativity, NHS Hospital, Met Office, Proximus, Go1, Mentat, Bluestone Analytics, Humanz, Hutch, Auchan, Sitecore, Linklaters, Socren, Infotrack, Pfizer, Engadget, Airbus, Grab, Vimeo, Ticketmaster, Asana, Twilio, Blizzard, Comcast, RWE and many others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon AWS CloudSearch vs. Elastic Search and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.