Amazon CloudFront

Cloudfront is one of the oldest CDN with presence in a lot of locations. This really helps in making the content load faster in all the locations globally. Other products have also caught up with this but still AWS has a lot of other services which can be connected with the CDN which helps overall.

CloudFronts beats everyone with their free 1 TB monthly bandwidth usage. And if we compare speed and latency of CloudFront with the BunnyCDN and CloudFare, CloudFront is was faster than them. With CloudFront, we get options like signed URL and signed cookies which prevent our content to embed on other websites plus setting file type which I don't find in their competitors.

Have used the IBM Cloud Content Delivery Network for a very short time span like a couple of weeks. Both the setup as well as interactions with other services are a little complicated or not straightforward when compared to AWS.
Also, IBM cloud has less number of edge locations than AWS Cloudfront.

Amazon has always been creative and leading, and I have been using its services for years. They are very reassuring and have fast and responsive support--you can call them from any time zone to respond quickly. High security on servers, open hands on changes, and increasing and decreasing server resources and features.

We use a great set of AWS features and it was easy to implement Amazon CloudFront. It fulfills our needs, and the learning curve was not difficult given the AWS configuration we already have.

I find Amazon CloudFront to be better suited to my business needs in terms of robustness, agility and scalalbility of the solution.

Because our products are built and utilize other AWS features, it was easiest to implement Amazon CloudFront based on initial environment configuration. Other CDNs were easier to get started with but required manual intervention to update overtime.

If you are using other AWS services, then no other CDN can compete with AWS CloudFront. Its integration with WAF, Route53, ACM allow it to provide a whole ecosystem for building websites and using a CDN. It gives developers access to inexpensive, pay-as-you-go pricing. Developers also benefit from tight integration with other Amazon Web Services.

We ended up selecting CloudFront because we were already using an Amazon stack. To be honest, since we were already in the ecosystem there was little reason to deviate once we saw pricing was comparable.

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.

CloudFront is well-suited for a particular use case with its native tie-ins to other Amazon/AWS services, like S3. If choosing from a platform-specific CDN, we tend to go with whichever CDN is available for use on that platform (e.g. Google or Azure). In rare cases we might suggest a lower-cost CDN for use cases where the cost of bandwidth is of top importance, but these cases tend to be unusual.

CloudFlare is another great CDN service. It comes with a lot of things set up of the box for you, and gives you a basic and reasonable set up straight away. It also has a free-tier for smaller sites. CloudFlare doesn't quite have the same level of configurability, however. The biggest reason for using CloudFront for us, though, was down to the use of other AWS services and the great integrations.

Amazon CloudFront free Tier allows up to 50 GB of data transfer per month which is not there in any of the above. Amazon CloudFront provides detailed reporting around the most frequently used objects, monitoring and usage charts. Amazon CloudFront is suitable to help you deliver both static and dynamic content, including streaming. CloudFlare is not an actual CDN, but more of a reverse proxy that takes over all of your traffic and then serves cached versions of your content whenever possible and from a nearby location.Amazon CloudFront provides advanced security features and geo restriction. CloudFront is using Super PoP approach, which means much fewer (edge) locations, compared to the thousands that Akamai has around the world. This is why CloudFront costs less than Akamai.