Amazon CloudFront

It is really well suited when you want to serve some static content really fast and in an optimized way.

It is not as good for something where you need to modify the content before it is served. You then need to use something like Lambda on the edge. While some competitors have made it simpler.

Amazon CloudFront is the perfect solution for any type of company. If a company is small or medium size, CloudFront offers 1 TB monthly free bandwidth which is more than for any small and medium size companies. If we compare the speed of CloudFront with other CDN, CloudFront is way ahead of their competitors and with 1 TB free bandwidth. If someone is ready to invest time in CloudFront documentation then he/she definitely go for it.

Cloudfront is an excellent service when you have a website and its customers are globally distributed and you need to give them the best customer experience by providing the content in a reliable and faster manner. Also, Cloudfront distributes from more than 200 edge locations and to note it has the largest number of edge locations among its competitor on a big scale. And includes WAF and can interact with the authorization technique.

It's easy to distribute your services with a secure channel, As I mentioned in the beginning we are trying to find a way to deliver our services to the users and clients. It's improving and making our business in the top of other competitors. We so satisfied with Amazon CloudFront's solution

CloudFront is well suited for websites that use a lot of digital media and assets like photos, videos, PDFs, and other downloads. It is less appropriate for anyone looking for a ready-made solution for websites and marketing as it offers a high level of customization and is very easy to implement into custom setups.

Well suited to start with a CDN within the AWS infrastructure, hosting static contents for web sites, and managing custom SSL certificates.

Amazon CloudFront is well suited for accelerated static web content delivery.

If your content is vital to the product you sell, or if your content IS what you sell, then you need some kind of content delivery network service. You get redundancy at many levels, protecting you from outages. The speed of access to your content for your customers is improved and stabilized. You don't have to pay for all the hardware and technicians to get the infrastructure set up, which is a huge benefit. AWS tech support is very good in case you need assistance in setting up your CloudFront CDN. The best use for CloudFront is also as part of a 100% AWS-based infrastructure. AWS's services all work well together, but sometimes have issues with outside integration. If your content is not a big piece of your money-making operation, you can probably get away with something simpler.

Well suited for the following scenarios:
- hosting static content for your websites.
- hosting videos and images to be shown on the website.
- integrating and managing custom SSL certificates.
- integrating with AWS WAF and Route 53.
Less suited to storing large files. You should use AWS S3.

It's great for engineers who know what they're doing, but you don't want to bug an engineer every time you want to update an image asset. The process of uploads and invalidations can be too complex for non-technical staff, which can bottleneck content delivery and updates.

It is great if you are serving a lot of static content. If you have pages with lots of images, this is very useful to reduce the number of requests directly to S3.

Amazon CloudFront shines as an addition to an organization that's already invested in the Amazon stack, and would rather pay a bit more for the ease of having all their services covered by a single provider. It shines less where cost is the central concern, or more advanced analytics are needed at edge sites.

If your website or web application has an international userbase it is important to use CloudFront to decrease the distance between your users and the assets that comprise your website or web application. If all of your users are located within a short distance of where you website is hosted, CloudFront will likely have little impact and is less appropriate.

If you've already got plenty of AWS services, CloudFront is an obvious choice. It integrates seamlessly with other AWS infrastructure, and can be managed via CloudFormation as part of your wider Infrastructure as Code. Whilst it is slightly more complex than some of the competition to set up, it does have a large number of options and is very configurable.

If you want to do just the very basic CDN at the minimum of cost on a small website (e.g. personal blog), its perhaps not the best choice. However, I personally made the decision to use CloudFront anyway, even though it was a little more than the competition, purely for the convenience factor as I was using Route 53 anyway and it gives me plenty of future options should I wish to make it more complex later on.

Amazon CloudFront is best suited when there is a need of speed in serving static and dynanic web contents of a web application. If the content is already in that edge location, CloudFront delivers it immediately. If the content is not currently in that edge location, CloudFront retrieves it from an Amazon S3 bucket or an HTTP server. Amazon CloudFront is not appropriate in case users can tolerate some delays or servers are present near to the location of user. It also Integrates through the W3 Total Cache plugin. Amazon CloudFront Pricing based on bandwidth usage that's the best part of it.