We performed a comparison between Amazon AWS and SAP S4HANA on AWS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Amazon AWS is very user-friendly."
"It's quite stable and scalable. The price is good as well."
"The solution has good speed. It's very fast."
"You can instantly scale resources up or down as needed, avoiding the need to build infrastructure from scratch."
"The features with Amazon AWS that I have found most valuable are its flexibility and high availability. These are the most important and attractive points for me."
"The product is reliable and quite stable."
"There are many valuable features, I find the EMR in the platform easy to use and to learn."
"Using AWS is really helpful for saving costs."
"I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten because it covers all the fields, has a big maturity, and has something other solutions are missing, which is speed."
"There are two main features that we find very valuable. One is the interface and the new user experience. That's really, really helpful for the end-user. The second is the HANA database itself because it speeds up the process. In other solutions, like Oracle, there is a lot of redundancy that slows things down."
"The internal integration within departments and integration with third parties is simplified in the system."
"They have their own instances where you can host your database."
"After the implementation phase of the product, it becomes a very stable tool."
"I appreciate the reliability and performance of SAP S/4HANA on AWS. It demonstrates high integration and stability, making it a widely used choice in various industries, including manufacturing, such as factories, carmakers, and battery production. It effectively covers a broad spectrum of business areas, which is beneficial."
"This solution has one of the most modern databases and it is very stable."
"Provides good performance and regular release of new features."
"They should really consolidate and make things simpler rather than offer you hundreds of random options. The way everything is arranged really forces users to figure out everything on their own and then, on top of that, to calculate the total costs. There's an infinite number of combinations even just with cost calculations. It's just too much."
"Some of their well-listed services are not super configurable."
"One of the issues I'm facing is that my RDS SQL Server version 5.8 is reaching its end of life, and I need to upgrade it to a customer-wanted version. I want to do this on Graviton instances, but Graviton only starts with version 8.0 and currently doesn't support the 5.8 series. We've raised a Priority Feature Request (PFR) with AWS to have this functionality added for at least three months. This would give us enough time to upgrade our database to the 8.0 version without any issues."
"The setup of the solution is not so easy, it requires various skills to complete it. The whole implementation can take a month."
"They are mainly generalists without access to the operating system. As such, they can provide container level insights,not necessarily at the application level."
"Price can always be cheaper."
"It should be easier to monitor the performance and generate analytic information so that we can determine how to provide better support for our clients."
"The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly."
"More availability zones will help customers choose AWS. I would like to see features that provide easier onboarding for ERP solutions like SAP. SAP has already partnered with S/4HANA on AWS for hosting its public cloud as well. More educational videos for customers to choose this cloud path would be great to have. That is, providing more documentation and marketing material would be better."
"The drawback of this tool versus an on-site tool is that you've got to upgrade the tool. The software is upgraded as it gets upgraded and you've got to be ready to change whatever processes and do whatever training you need to do."
"The tool should undergo an overall improvement, including support. Data sharing should also be faster."
"SAP S4HANA could be improved by adding a click-to-deploy model."
"The solution needs a warehouse management feature. Right now, there's a built-in WM, but they don't have an EWM extended warehouse management built-in, in S/4HANA. It's a separate product. So if they can add that, that would be great."
"There are a few complexities when it comes to licensing that could be simplified."
"I would like scalability to be improved in the future for faster performance."
"Not just S4 but for SAP in general, the price is a little high because they have implemented a new licensing scheme on a number of connections. The price being too expensive is some of the feedback we get from our customers."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 250 reviews while SAP S4HANA on AWS is ranked 7th in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) with 35 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while SAP S4HANA on AWS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon AWS writes "Reliable with good security but is difficult to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP S4HANA on AWS writes "With good documentation in place, the solution offers good technical support to its users". Amazon AWS is most compared with Linode, OpenShift, Microsoft Azure, SAP Cloud Platform and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), whereas SAP S4HANA on AWS is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, SAP HANA Enterprise Cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Alibaba Cloud. See our Amazon AWS vs. SAP S4HANA on AWS report.
See our list of best Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) vendors.
We monitor all Infrastructure as a Service Clouds (IaaS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.