<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
Top Rated
391 Ratings

Amazon Web Services

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
Top Rated
391 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.9 out of 101
168 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8 out of 101

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon Web Services

Each and every feature of this application is unique and is also efficient enough to help me to make suitable decisions for my company. Apart from this, if I talk about any concerns in it or any disastrous drawbacks then there are no words because this application is a lifesaver by every point of view without having anything to objectify. Moreover, this application provides me with the right of pre-built services, which benefit me when building custom cloud-based solutions.
Martha Batruny profile photo

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

IBM Compose is well suited when a technical founder or engineering team with basic experience with the datastores is able to quickly get set up and going with a datastore without worrying about setup or server operations.IBM Compose may not be well suited if there is already a team in place to handle datastore server setup or if there is an absolute minimum budget needed.
No photo available

Feature Rating Comparison

Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)

Amazon Web Services
9.0
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime
Amazon Web Services
9.4
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Dynamic scaling
Amazon Web Services
9.6
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Elastic load balancing
Amazon Web Services
9.4
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Pre-configured templates
Amazon Web Services
8.2
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Monitoring tools
Amazon Web Services
8.4
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Pre-defined machine images
Amazon Web Services
9.0
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Operating system support
Amazon Web Services
9.0
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Security controls
Amazon Web Services
9.2
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

Database-as-a-Service

Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.3
Automatic software patching
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.5
Database scalability
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.7
Automated backups
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.7
Database security provisions
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.3
Monitoring and metrics
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
6.8
Automatic host deployment
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.8

Pros

Amazon Web Services

  • AWS (Amazon Web Services) is not the easiest virtual service to set up but once you get the hang of it, it's fairly easy to install new instances (servers) and stop them. This is good for multiple reasons e.g we run multiple tests and live production servers for our different services. When we are done with one we can easily turn it off. The cost of the specifications on our virtual servers is only a fraction of the cost of what we would get locally or even on most traditional web services companies.
  • Amazon Web Services can be relatively cost efficient depending on where you are coming from. For our smaller organization, we felt the cost was worth it as other alternatives were not as affordable. The good thing with AWS is you only pay for what you use. If you want S3 (Simple Storage Service), you can pay for that. If you want to run a compute engine, EC2 can be paid for. At the end of the month, you get one bill based on your usage.
  • Because of our size as a company, AWS was easier to deploy compared to local dedicated solutions. All we had to do was take our development team through a simple 2-day course to get them on board. The ease of deployment means that we do not have to hire a specialist to deploy servers for us.
Nathan Sichilongo profile photo

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

  • Instant setup: configuring and setting up a production environment for PostgreSQL can be an expensive and time consuming task, with Compose we just clicked "new instance".
  • Backups: same as instant setup - no need to worry about creating a backup flow. Backups are always available in the Compose dashboard and also accessible via an API for additional storage (i.e. move to S3)
  • High Availability: harder than setting up backup and monitoring, is setting up HA for PostgreSQL, since it doesn't have it out of the box, and there aren't official tools. Compose abstracts the setup putting multiple instances behind HAProxy, and your application doesn't even have to worry about changing instances.
  • Scaling
Alfred Reinold Baudisch profile photo

Cons

Amazon Web Services

  • Better user support would be nice. It seems hard to find help when you need something specific from an Amazon employee.
  • Even though the prices are set up for enterprise they do seem high for small to mid level businesses, compared to other alternatives.
  • It would be nice to be able to have some type of DB security built in to the EC2s or as a default.
No photo available

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

  • Pricing - they obviously need to look out for MongoDB's Atlas, which is globally cheaper for the part I'm interested in: MongoDB hosting.
  • Updates - at the moment I'm seriously considering going to Atlas. Mongo 3.6 is a huge update and at the moment Compose is stuck on 3.4, while Atlas is up to 3.6.
  • Analytics - the analytics/performance tools for Compose are not very user-friendly. For a hosted, let's say novice-friendly offering like Compose, I think there should be far more context about how to interpret the information given and easier ways to alert in case of problems.
No photo available

Likelihood to Renew

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services 9.4
Based on 10 answers
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.
Marc Schriftman profile photo

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose) 8.5
Based on 3 answers
I am very fond of the features and reliability of the compose DaaS, however I could switch if I find same qualities for lower price.
No photo available

Usability

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services 7.3
Based on 5 answers
We find it quite easy to use. The only challenge is at the outset figuring out exactly what you need, given the large number of available services and options which could take a bit of time to get familiarised with and to decide on.
No photo available

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose) 8.7
Based on 3 answers
It is great the only things I have stumbled upon is the non standard port 80 they use and sometimes expired SSL certificate.
No photo available

Reliability and Availability

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services 9.0
Based on 1 answer
Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.
No photo available

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Performance

Amazon Web Services

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

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

No answers on this topic

Support

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services 9.4
Based on 9 answers
I've been using AWS as our primary compute platform for almost 2 years. During that time I've opened no more than 4 support cases. Typically those were for questions to get answered and not hard down scenarios. Their support is quick, very processional, and work with you to help solve your problem.
Tyler Cook profile photo

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose) 7.2
Based on 5 answers
Support is helpful enough, but we haven't always had questions answered in a satisfactory manner. At one time we realized that Compose had stopped taking database snapshots on its two-per-day schedule, and had in fact not taken one for many days. Support recognized the problem and it was fixed, but the lack of proactive checks and the inability to share exactly what happened has caused us to look elsewhere for production work loads
Joshua Dickson profile photo

Implementation

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services 10.0
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

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

Amazon Web Services

The maturity of AWS platform with integrations of large third-party vendors products through AWS marketplace and continuous launch of new services every year bring confidence to the users and also the ease of use and help from the large community when compared to other platform are the key primary reasons when deciding AWS.
No photo available

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

MongoDB is the primary db we use, and Meteor is the primary application framework. Configuring MongoDB to fully support Meteor oplog tailing is a challenge - and when we started looking, Compose was those only MongoDB provider that had turnkey support for Meteor.Since we wanted managed Apache Kafka deployments and Compose doesn't offer Kafka, we found Eventador.io, which offers managed Kafka exclusively. It's a much smaller company and they're constantly updating their GUI console and adding/removing features - which is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it's great to get constant improvements, it's also a little confusing when thing changes or features are removed. Compose on the other hand, was completely "boring" - it was a mature product that did want we needed. Which is exactly what you want out of infrastructure...
Carlo Quiñonez profile photo

Return on Investment

Amazon Web Services

  • AWS has allowed us to properly budget our infrastructure and IT costs. This helps us plan our expenditures for future development and projects.
  • AWS has allowed us to leverage some of the newest technologies (FSx) to make our software offering one of the most dependable in the industry.
Calvin Nystrom profile photo

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

  • The cost for a service with this level of reliability has been outstanding.
  • The one time that we had an issue, which was back when the product was still MongoHQ, they credited us with a month of service to make things right even though the problem really had minimal impact on our business.
David Hart profile photo

Pricing Details

Amazon Web Services

General

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

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

General

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

Add comparison