What users are saying about
1 Ratings
338 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
1 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8 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

Engine Yard

It is best for rapidly getting your application to the cloud without worrying about standing up cloud infrastructure
No photo available

Feature Rating Comparison

Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)

Amazon Web Services
8.3
Engine Yard
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime
Amazon Web Services
8.9
Engine Yard
Dynamic scaling
Amazon Web Services
9.1
Engine Yard
Elastic load balancing
Amazon Web Services
8.7
Engine Yard
Pre-configured templates
Amazon Web Services
7.6
Engine Yard
Monitoring tools
Amazon Web Services
7.5
Engine Yard
Pre-defined machine images
Amazon Web Services
7.9
Engine Yard
Operating system support
Amazon Web Services
7.9
Engine Yard
Security controls
Amazon Web Services
8.4
Engine Yard

Pros

  • AWS constantly innovates and iterates, announcing new features several times per year. Earlier this year, for example, they introduced provisioned IOPS for EBS, suddenly providing us with an inexpensive solution to a performance quandary we'd been facing.
  • AWS has provided us with access to the product owners and architects of the products we use most. In turn, those resources provided us with visibility into the product road maps. This enabled us to improve our long-term infrastructure planning, and avoid expensive features that we'd get for free later in the year.
  • AWS peremptorily lowers costs a couple of times per year. This has helped us keep our bill reasonable even as we consume more and more of the AWS services. We periodically compare the cost of AWS to the cost of moving into our colo, and every year the colo looks less and less attractive.
Marc Schriftman profile photo
  • Quick deployments
  • Easily integrate your code from GitHub
  • Ability to recover site quickly to different zone when AWS has a widespread outage
No photo available

Cons

  • Because we have a large amount of data, constantly uploading and downloading, our monthly fee isn't a set amount, but instead fluctuates up and down each month.
Stella Gillham profile photo
  • Embracing new Amazon Web Servicess(AWS) features
  • Security groups need more granularity
  • Audit trails of what happens by who in environment, especially when VM is deleted
No photo available

Likelihood to Renew

Amazon Web Services9.4
Based on 10 answers
AWS is still the platform of choice for our customers.
Jeremy Snyder profile photo
Engine Yard8.0
Based on 1 answer
Ease of use
No photo available

Usability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 3 answers
The management console is the weak part of the service in my experience. It is adequate but slow.
No photo available
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 looked into other server hosts, but the cost was out of our budget. We were quoted a monthly fee of $500 to $750, plus an initial fee of over $1,000. AWS made the most financial sense as well as other reviews and recommendations
Stella Gillham profile photo
More closely aligns to native AWS
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • This information is not under my specific role or responsibilities even though I use the software on a weekly basis. However, I feel confident in saying that if it was not worth the investment we would have discontinued our use of it by now.
Rebekah Madonia profile photo
  • Positive in the sense that we can deploy new applications quickly for MVP
No photo available

Pricing Details

Amazon Web Services

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

Engine Yard

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