Amazon Web Services vs. Azure App Service vs. Google Cloud Platform

This is something that is actually common across most cloud providers. A comprehensive understanding of one's use cases, constraints and future directions is key to determining if you even need a cloud solution. If you are a 2-person startup developing something with a best-scenario audience of 1k DAU in a year, you would very likely best served by a dirt-cheap dedicated Linux server somewhere (and your options to graduate to a cloud solution will still be open). If, however, you are a bigger fish, and/or you are actively considering build-vs-buy decisions for complicated, highly-loaded, six-figure requests per minute systems, global loadbalancing, extreme growth projections - then MAYBE you solve all or part of it with a cloud provider. And depending on your taste for risk, reliability, flexibility, track record - it might be AWS.

Incentivized

You may easily deploy your apps to Azure App Service if they were written in Visual Studio IDE (typically.NET applications). With a few clicks of the mouse, you may already deploy your application to a remote server using the Visual Studio IDE. As a result of the portal's bulk and complexity, I propose Heroku for less-experienced developers.

Incentivized

When most of our stuff is in Google Cloud Platform, it works great to integrate and cross/share data that is all in Google Cloud Platform or BigQuery. It has simplified things from a permissions perspective as well. I'd say it is less appropriate when trying to test something quickly locally, or when half your stuff is in AWS or another provider.

Incentivized

• During the month-end, we experience high resource utilization; however, with AWS's scalability, we can effectively tackle the peak load.
• With AWS IAM, we don't need to set up complete infrastructure for identity and access management, as AWS provides end-to-end IAM services.
• With AWS, development has become very easy as it's very quick to spin up and destroy the environment, which saves costs.

Incentivized

• Extremely easy to deploy and update from Visual Studio
• It integrates seamlessly with other Azure PaaS resources
• It has an in-depth integration with AppInsights, so you can understand errors and their root cause easily.
• Easy to create and delete, what is not the same case in a IaaS resource
• It escalates based on CPU workload and some other resource variables.
• Configuration changes are almost immediate
• Offers an excellent abstraction from hardware backend of the platform
• That's updated very often, saving time and the risk of a self-performed update over a IaaS
• That's really easy to develop for Web Apps
• It supports Function Apps and Web Apps into the same "cost black box"

Incentivized

• Easy to set up
• Affordable use of the tool
• Easy to access billing
• Reliable service

Incentivized

• When there is any misconfiguration of EC2 related to SSM Connect. It doesn't clearly states that what particular configuration is missing.
• Debugging networking related issues could be improved.
• From the security group page, it's difficult to determine which resource a security group is associated with.

Incentivized

• Jumps between resource sizes can get expensive
• You may wind up putting a lot of eggs in one basket--not necessarily a con but something to keep in mind (most of your data will likely be managed and processed through Microsoft products/services if you fully commit to Azure App Service).
• Learning new technology. If you're moving from on-premises to Azure App Service (or any cloud solutions), you'll likely have to rethink how things are done to achieve the same end results (and/or resources may become expensive quickly).

Incentivized

• The UI is so confusing. The console is good, but it is like a maze. There are too many menus and settings, and things do not work as expected. It takes time to get friendly, and it is not friendly for new users.
• Support experience: Sometimes, you get a great engineer, but other times, it's very difficult to talk with them as they are unable to respond as expected and solve issues late.
• Region and zone are issues, as not all services are available in all regions, which is lacking when deploying something in the same region or zone.

Incentivized

We are almost entirely satisfied with the service. In order to move off it, we'd have to build for ourselves many of the services that AWS provides and the cost would be prohibitive. Although there are cost savings and security benefits to returning to the colo facility, we could never afford to do it, and we'd hate to give up the innovation and constant cycle of new features that AWS gives us.

AWS offers a wide range of powerful services that cater to various business needs which is significant strength. The ability to scale resources on-demand is a major advantage making it suitable for businesses of all sizes. The sheer volume of options and configurations can be overwhelming for new users leading to a steep learning curve. While functional the AWS management console can feel cluttered and less intuitive compared to some competitors which can hinder navigation. Although some documentation lacks clarity and practical examples which can frustrate users trying to implement specific solutions.

Incentivized

I have given this rating because Azure App Service performs very well in terms of speed, reliability, and reducing overhead, and improves overall team productivity, with a little scope for improvement in complex testing scenarios and configurations, scalability concerns in a large setup, and similar tracking and audit needs.

Incentivized

The Google Cloud Platform console is pretty slick for BigQuery especially. I have liked the visibility I get from using that and the way to integrate and see what's in our data lake. The logging console for tracking GKE jobs isn't quite as great, which is why it doesn't get a full 10.

Incentivized

Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.

AWS does not provide the raw performance that you can get by building your own custom infrastructure. However, it is often the case that the benefits of specialized, high-performance hardware do not necessarily outweigh the significant extra cost and risk. Performance as perceived by the user is very different from raw throughput.

The customer support of Amazon Web Services are quick in their responses. I appreciate its entire team, which works amazingly, and provides professional support. AWS is a great tool, indeed, to provide customers a suitable way to
immediately search for their compatible software's and also to guide them in a
good direction. Moreover, this product is a good suggestion for every type of
company because of its affordability and ease of use.

Incentivized

Microsoft has always been known for providing a high standard in terms of customer support and Azure App Service (and as a matter of fact the whole Azure Platform) is no exception. Azure App Service never caused us any issues and we only contacted their customer support for questions regarding server locations and pricing. I feel pretty satisfied with how they treat their customers.

Incentivized

The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.

Amazon Web Services fits best for all levels of organisations like startup, mid level or enterprise. The services are easy to use and doesn't require a high level of understanding as you can learn via blogs or youtube videos. AWS is Reasonable in cost as the plan is pay as you use.

Incentivized

When we chose it, we did so because of its integration with Microsoft applications; now we need to integrate with AI, and Azure doesn't offer a good integration. That is the main reason to change it. It is still great to develop Windows- and Microsoft-based applications, but if we need to integrate with AI, Google wins by far.

Incentivized

Google Cloud Platform is release later than Amazon web service, I think that why Google Cloud Platform can learned and optimized the Dashboard and some features that make it easy to use and can be cheaper than amazon web service.

• Using Amazon Web Services has allowed us to develop and deploy new SAAS solutions quicker than we did when we used traditional web hosting. This has allowed us to grow our service offerings to clients and also add more value to our existing services.
• Having AWS deployed has also allowed our development team to focus on delivering high-quality software without worrying about whether our servers will be able to handle the demand. Since AWS allows you to adjust your server needs based on demand, we can easily assign a faster server instance to ease and improve service without the client even knowing what we did.

Incentivized

• Deployment of ASP.NET apps at the organization has been sped up.
• An option to offer access to the version control system on a third platform so that we could easily deploy our apps.
• Because of Azure App Service's scalability capabilities, the costs of running the services are kept to a minimum. As a result, we may save hundreds of dollars each month compared to the expenses of traditional servers by using fewer resources during slack periods.

Incentivized

• It allows us to focus our efforts on other, more important items at hand
• It gives us an affordable option letting me know it's available to all users, not just the largest scale ones out there
• The customer service is always helpful and reliable, along with the service itself which lets me focus on my work instead of worrying about the service.

Incentivized