Cost effective web services
March 14, 2016

Cost effective web services

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Amazon Web Services

We are using AWS S3 and EC2 to host our customer's campaign website, public videos clips, content management system etc. S3 is really easy to setup and we don't need to put a lot of effort to maintain it; the bandwidth is virtually unlimited and it is very helpful for video download. The availability is great, so we don't need to worry about server or storage failure. Scale up the server in just a few clicks.


  • S3 -> Virtually unlimited bandwidth, works well with Edge servers (CDN), super easy to setup
  • E2C -> Again, easy to setup and maintain


  • No datacenter in Hong Kong
  • Weak in Enterprise services (SLA)
  • Positive, save time, save initial hardware investment
  • Azure
AWS is Good for startups or FMCG customer but for FSI customer, their relationship is weak, hard to convince our client move to AWS

Well suited for campaign web site with huge traffic, a lot of small video clips.

Not so great for banking and finance customers

Amazon Web Services Feature Ratings

Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime
Dynamic scaling
Elastic load balancing
Pre-configured templates
Monitoring tools
Pre-defined machine images
Operating system support
Security controls

Evaluating Amazon Web Services and Competitors

Yes - Dedicated hosting and shared hosting, too much effort to operate. The cost is high, need to worry about security and bandwidth, heard to deal with datacenter operators, inflexible to scale up and scale out, network performance is slow compared to AWS, storage is limited and expensive to maintain. Frequent data center visit is required...
  • Price
  • Product Usability
  • Vendor Reputation
Price! AWS is very cost effective compare to both traditional co-location hosting and Microsoft Azure, As a digital agency we run and maintain our client's campaign website, with the subscription model it is more flexibility and financially less risk as we only need to paid for the traffic used and we can always charge back our client.
I will likely use Amazon web services, although Microsoft Azure is more mature right now, Amazon web service is still cheaper and easier to setup and operate for most of my clients. Both offer very good security but Microsoft has its edge as it has data center in Hong Kong.

Amazon Web Services Support

unless you paid the premium, no support at all
Kept well informed
Slow Resolution
Poor followup
Problems left unsolved
Escalation required
Difficult to get immediate help
Slow Initial Response
No - Not sure why I need it, we had paid for the product already why we need to paid for their bugs
Yes - No, hard to content the right person
Sorry, none I can think of. Thank god AWS does not have a lot of issues so I don't need to deal with the support

Using Amazon Web Services

Overall very easy to use, compare to Azure
Like to use
Relatively simple
Easy to use
Quick to learn
Feel confident using
  • Upload files to S3
  • Reporting tools
  • Create VM
  • Reporting - the figures, what's the definition?
  • CDN, cache management!


More Reviews of Amazon Web Services