28 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9 out of 101
3 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 6.4 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon CloudFront

Amazon CloudFront is best suited when there is a need of speed in serving static and dynanic web contents of a web application. If the content is already in that edge location, CloudFront delivers it immediately. If the content is not currently in that edge location, CloudFront retrieves it from an Amazon S3 bucket or an HTTP server. Amazon CloudFront is not appropriate in case users can tolerate some delays or servers are present near to the location of user. It also Integrates through the W3 Total Cache plugin. Amazon CloudFront Pricing based on bandwidth usage that's the best part of it.
Ashish Agarwal profile photo

Limelight Orchestrate Delivery

Limelight's tech support and their attitude are tremendous. They are always available, willing to assist and quick. They are problem solvers with a can-do attitude.
No photo available

Pros

  • Distribution - Easily deployed globally with proper configuration
  • Speed - No customers complain about delivery issues or slow loading
  • Delivery - we can rely on the service to stay up and deliver our assets
Matthew Gardner profile photo
  • We used Limelight Networks (LLNW) for content storage and reporting. They continued to update and improve the platform. Their customer communication approach had evolved over the years to become very good.
  • We webcast live events throughout North America and abroad from multiple locations for multiple clients, simultaneously.
  • We built applications on top of LLNW infrastructure.
No photo available

Cons

  • The UI is godawful. I would almost say you need to be technical to feel confident that you're not going to break something, which is an issue for us as not all of our graphics team can use it.
Matthew Gardner profile photo
  • We found the LLNW business model and therefore workflow is not set up for multiple live webcasts. It can be done but it is not cost-effective as compared to competitors.
  • While their contracts evolve to be more competitive, those original customers/supporters are trapped in old un-competitive contracts and sales blames the lawyers for their inability to make changes.
No photo available

Alternatives Considered

We went with CloudFront primarily because we have all of our other services with Amazon already. We are using EC2, S3, Elastic Beanstalk, and are very familiar with the interface. It did not disappoint.
Chris Barretto profile photo
We have moved our live webcasting and archived hosting away from LLNW. There were some technical hurdles that we could not overcome, even with their technical support. For our business model, LLNW's fee structure was not competitive with others in their space.

We do appreciate them for trying though.
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • Running a CDN in front of static (or semi-static) web resources dramatically reduced server-load at a much lower cost. This meant much better scalability when it was introduced.
Andrew Raines profile photo
  • We built our live and archived webcasting part of our business around the LLNW platform. We built a successful business with the assistance of their tools and network. Management is really working hard to ensure clients are happy and are being assisted by the organization.
No photo available

Pricing Details

Amazon CloudFront

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

Limelight Orchestrate Delivery

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details