What users are saying about

Amazon Web Services

309 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.8 out of 101

CloudFoundry

5 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9.4 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services is well suited for companies that don't want to have deal with physical infrastructure and want a high level of security and availability. In most cases Amazon Web Services is a great option for most, but may not be an option if you have met the tipping point of physical cost vs. Amazon Web Services cost. It may end up being a better option in the long run to manage the infrastructure yourself if the cost per hour of Amazon Web Services is greater than what you can provide if your level of availability is equal to or greater than Amazon Web Services.
No photo available

CloudFoundry

It's well suited if:
  • The organization has large number of applications that needs to be deployed frequently.
  • The organization is tied to the DevOps mindset.
  • The organization has programs in different languages.
  • The applications does not need EJB's support that servers like web logic provide.
It's less suited if:
  • The applications needs security configuration within the same CloudFoundry instance.
  • The organization, for whatever reason does not want developers to manage the instances.
Anudeep Palanki profile photo

Feature Rating Comparison

Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)

Amazon Web Services
8.4
CloudFoundry
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime
Amazon Web Services
8.7
CloudFoundry
Dynamic scaling
Amazon Web Services
8.9
CloudFoundry
Elastic load balancing
Amazon Web Services
9.0
CloudFoundry
Pre-configured templates
Amazon Web Services
7.7
CloudFoundry
Monitoring tools
Amazon Web Services
7.9
CloudFoundry
Pre-defined machine images
Amazon Web Services
7.9
CloudFoundry
Operating system support
Amazon Web Services
8.5
CloudFoundry
Security controls
Amazon Web Services
8.2
CloudFoundry

Platform-as-a-Service

Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
9.8
Ease of building user interfaces
Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
10.0
Scalability
Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
9.0
Development environment creation
Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
10.0
Development environment replication
Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
10.0
Issue recovery
Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
10.0
Upgrades and platform fixes
Amazon Web Services
CloudFoundry
10.0

Pros

  • The ability to scale vertically and horizontally easily.
  • The ability to get server notifications
  • Ease of use within the AWS GUI
No photo available
  • Support for Orgs and Spaces that allow for managing users and deployables within a large organization.
  • Easy deployment, deploying code is as simple as executing single line from CLI, thanks to build-packs.
  • Solid and rich CLI, that allows for various operations on the instance.
  • Isolated Virtual Machines called Droplets, that provide clean run time environment for the code. This used to be a problem with Weblogic and other application servers, where multiple applications are run on the same cluster and they share resources.
  • SSH capability for the droplet (isolated VM's are called droplets), that allows for real time viewing of the App code while the application is running.
  • Support for multiple languages, thanks to build-packs.
  • Support for horizontal scaling, scaling an instance horizontally is a breeze.
  • Support for configuring environment variable using the service bindings.
  • Supports memory and disk space limit allocation for individual applications.
  • Supports API's as well as workers (processes without endpoints)
  • Supports blue-green deployment with minimal down time
Anudeep Palanki profile photo

Cons

  • Occasionally, we disagree with their roadmap priorities. For example, we really needed Content-Based Routing added to ELB to support our multitenant implementation. The AWS architects agreed that it was a mainstream, valuable request and hinted that they were trying to get it onto the roadmap, but 15 months later there's still no sign of it. I'm sure they have their reasons, but it's a strange and annoying hole in an otherwise invaluable service.
  • AWS has had well-publicized outages that have broken the promise of true zone (datacenter) isolation. This was supposed to have been impossible - if you had instances running in two zones within a region, you thought had a solid survivability story. We were forced to react by building out additional redundancy that increased costs beyond our original design estimates. AWS claims to have resolved the problem, but we haven't been confident enough to spin down the extra servers yet.
  • There are annoying resource limits, presumably in place to prevent hackers from allocating huge numbers of resources on a compromised account. The problem is that raising the resource limits requires manual action to be taken, and can have a severe impact on production software if your ops team isn't meticulous in checking the limits. As of the last time I checked, these limits weren't available via API, making it impossible to create alarms whenever we get close to exceeding our resource limits.
  • AWS is relatively infamous for their poor communications during outages. Their status page will occasionally go without an update for 45 minutes, while half your customers are dead in the water. This is - obviously - infuriating.
Marc Schriftman profile photo
  • Does not support stateful containers and that would be a nice to have.
  • Supports showing logs, but does not persist the logs anywhere. This makes relying on Cloud Foundry's logs very unreliable. The logs have to be persisted using other third party tools like Elk and Kibana.
Anudeep Palanki profile photo

Likelihood to Renew

Amazon Web Services9.4
Based on 10 answers
This is the only hosting solution I am using and I am not gonna look for any other because I am used to it and it meets my requirements: easy to use without compromising on control I have over my infrastructure. Also, I do live variety of AWS services.
Andrew Tabit profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Usability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 3 answers
Easy to use/learning curve. If you are new to the use of cloud storage, AWS is your entry point. If you have experience in that field, AWS is the way to go.
Miguel Angel Merino Vega profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Reliability and Availability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 1 answer
Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.
No photo available
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Performance

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.
No photo available
No answers on this topic

Support

Amazon Web Services3.0
Based on 3 answers
Neutral, no experience with either.
No photo available
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Implementation

Amazon Web Services10.0
Based on 3 answers
The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.
Brian Lusenhop profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

We also looked at Rackspace but was attracted to AWS by the breadth of services available at comparable cost and reliability.
No photo available
While Docker shines in providing support for volumes and stateful instances, Cloud foundry shines in providing support for deploying stateless services.Heroku shines in integrating with Git and using commits to git as hooks to trigger deployments right from the command line. But it does not provide on-premise solution that Cloud foundry provides.
Anudeep Palanki profile photo

Return on Investment

  • We've saved over $10,000 in the 2 years we've worked with AWS. We no longer have to pay to upgrade our internal server, we have no downtime. We no longer depend on our developer to come and 'fix' the server when it fails.
Stella Gillham profile photo
  • Positive impact, since it simplifies the deployment time by a huge margin. Without cloud foundry, deploying a code needs coordination with infrastructure teams, while with cloud foundry, its a simple one line command. This reduces the deployment time from at least few hours to few minutes. Faster deployments promote faster dev cycle iterations.
  • Code maintenance such as upgrading a Node or Java version is as simple as updating the build-pack. Without cloud foundry, using web logic, the specific version only supports a specific version of Java. So updating the version involves upgrading the version of web logic that needs to involve few teams. So without cloud foundry, it takes at least few days, with cloud foundry, its a matter of few mins.
  • Overall, happier Developers and thats harder to quantify.
Anudeep Palanki profile photo

Pricing Details

Amazon Web Services

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

CloudFoundry

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