We performed a comparison between Amazon AWS and Pantheon based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution scales very nicely."
"There is no downtime. The solution is reliable."
"The ease of use is the biggest benefit."
"I like that the products are specific and objective. We can resolve a problem using a simple configuration. It's so easy to implement a solution and solve a problem using AWS solutions. AWS has a lot of specific solutions for different use cases. I think that this is the most important thing that made us consider using AWS."
"The main reason why we use EC2 is because we are not dependent on maintaining the hardware inside our premises. Also, we have full control over the infrastructure, and we can modify it as per our own requirements."
"It is quite easy to provision new virtual services for our use. The procedures are quite straightforward and simple as compared to other competitors, such as Microsoft or Huawei. This is what we are happy about with Amazon AWS. It is pretty mature in terms of the availability of most of the infrastructure components. If you want to deploy a server on your platform, everything is already there in terms of the operating system, network components, securities, and data encryption. It is also quite scalable and stable."
"It is stable. For the cloud version, we require some installation platforms and we don't have a server with us right now. We require it from Amazon AWS. We can just plan and get the AWS server."
"This solution offers a very detailed dashboard that has some metrics, such as performance and budget."
"Pantheon has the most valuable workflow model."
"The product allows users to create multiple development environments."
"The problem with AWS is you have to keep up with the technology. If you don't stay up to date with the technology and its latest changes then you won't know what to use in your infrastructure."
"Monthly costs can be high if you don't maintain your usage"
"Configuration could be simplified."
"We have had several issues with the products and services but as of now, there are no good alternatives."
"AWS has room for improvement on the Kubernetes side. I would like to go a little deeper into the Kubernetes target, Elastic, inner system, and all that. The EKS, target, and all these areas need to be improved, but that is not my key area because I am mostly working on the application side."
"AWS could be more scalable."
"Somehow Amazon associated their marketplace as a place to find images of various installs (preconfigured software) and was late in the game enabling and promoting SaaS-based solutions. Thus, the AWS marketplace has near zero awareness in the mind of the prospect to find solutions to various problems plaguing them."
"I would appreciate more direct support from AWS."
"The Multidev environment is very costly compared to other tools like AWS and GCP."
"Pantheon has the most valuable workflow model."
Amazon AWS is ranked 2nd in PaaS Clouds with 250 reviews while Pantheon is ranked 20th in PaaS Clouds with 2 reviews. Amazon AWS is rated 8.4, while Pantheon is rated 7.6. 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 Pantheon writes "The product is user-friendly and performs well, but it is very costly compared to other tools". Amazon AWS is most compared with Linode, OpenShift, Microsoft Azure, SAP Cloud Platform and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), whereas Pantheon is most compared with Acquia Cloud, Microsoft Azure, SAP Cloud Platform, GoDaddy and Cloudways. See our Amazon AWS vs. Pantheon report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.