What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon AWS?

The pricing depends on the workload. For example, if your workload involves Windows technologies, AWS may not be the most cost-effective option. In that case, you might be better off with Azure. But if you're working with open-source technologies, then AWS can be a good choice. They have their own process called RabbitMQ, which is an on-premises architecture where you can recompile all your applications to run on your own infrastructure. This can significantly reduce your costs compared to other hyperscalers like Google, Oracle, or Azure. So, it would be worth my money to go with Amazon AWS at the end of the day. However, if it's a Windows-based workload, I wouldn't recommend AWS.

The pricing is expensive.

The tool is expensive.

The price tends to be higher, but that is a usual case when prioritizing reliable backup solutions for servers and other infrastructure. In the cloud, costs are incurred based on usage, meaning that additional charges apply for each service utilized.

The tool’s pricing is reasonable.

The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten.

The pricing of Amazon AWS is high compared to any other cloud provider.

In comparison to Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure, the database offered by Amazon AWS is relatively expensive. However, the database also offers rich features. I rate the price of Amazon AWS a six out of ten.

AWS is a cloud service, so it's pay-as-you-go. Some of the storage services could be cheaper.

I don't handle the licensing side of things and therefore cannot comment on the price of the solution.

It is quite expensive in my very personal opinion. Going on-prem in a data center is, for sure, not as expensive as going to AWS, but when it comes to a point where you are raising and growing, it simply makes a lot of sense to stay in AWS. It is awesome in that way. I am not aware of any extra costs.

They have a pay-as-you-go subscription. You pay only for the time you use the service. By service, I mean that they are not frequently used by clients. It's the best idea because they are very expensive to them because if it's a small company and you have the option of pay as you go as a solution, it would be less expensive, and better for the company in terms of saving money. However, if some large clients, for example, use AWS as a hosting provider and compare their prices with other hosting providers, other hosting providers are more affordable. I believe that a pay-as-you-go solution is very inexpensive, but not for monthly or fixed prices.

It is very expensive, you have to be very cautious. Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

It is not the cheapest one, but there is a good ratio between the quality of service and the pricing. Its price is good for me.

We are on an annual subscription for Amazon AWS.

Licensing of this solution is paid on a yearly basis.

The licensing costs is billed monthly.

The licensing cost varies with the project involved. Certain projects run around $6,000 per month, some less and others more. We handled many projects, each with its own complexities and specifications. The price ranges of the licenses varies with the complexity of the project.

There is no licensing cost.

We need to pay for everything. If someone is a personal user, they get one year free. But if you are using this as a professional or enterprise solution, then your company has to pay. The license pricing is comparable to that of competitors'.

In terms of price, there are less expensive options. We are using open source technology, so there is no licensing.

What is hard with the public cloud service like AWS, is ensuring you maintain a good budget. Plan the monthly consumption properly. If you don't have the expertise in the cloud, your monthly cost can go very high. It's also very easy to set up services in AWS. I would also suggest companies look for a good partner that has the necessary experience to deploy the services when moving to the cloud. It's very simple, but you need to design a very good architecture for cost optimization and performance.

The pricing model of Amazon AWS is very good because there is an option to pay for what you use only, you do not have to give any money upfront to use it. However, we have some instances where we are on a monthly plan. When you compare Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, the pricing of both is almost the same. There are some instances when one is cheaper than the other in one area but it is difficult to pinpoint which one is cheaper because it depends upon a lot of factors, such as the use case. However, the overall price of both solutions could be reduced.

Amazon AWS could have more options and transparency in its pricing model. You need in-depth knowledge to adopt AWS. So someone without that knowledge base might not understand all of the costs associated with AWS.

We have a monthly subscription for Amazon AWS.

The solution could be more cost-effective.

It could be cheaper, and Amazon could also be more transparent with its pricing. I would first expect any product vendor to give me the utmost transparency on pricing information. There shouldn't be any hidden costs. Their service offerings have a bit of segmentation, and they focus more on SMBs. They brought them onto the cloud and encouraged them to use solutions on the cloud. But strategically, they should probably improve that and offer some credits.

The pricing of the product isn't overly expensive. It's basically set up as a pay-as-you-go. Therefore you're only paying for what you need and use.

The cost is moderate. It's not overly expensive.

It is most cost-effective to go for a long-term license option, that way you get a better deal for the cloud.

The price is quite reasonable. With Amazon AWS, you pay as you go.

With the enterprise product, you have to pay for a license, however, if you are using the open-source version, you don't pay to license it.

Its pricing can be simplified a little bit more. Even though they have been reducing it, I still believe they can do better as compared to GCP, Google Cloud.

The solution can get to be expensive.

Its price should be lower. Currently, the price is the same if you are working in-house or in production. If you have to do internal testing or you are checking if things are working in-house, you need to pay for that, and the price is the same. The price for in-house usage should be different from production usage.

The solution is on a pay-as-use pricing model. The price of the solution could always be better but it is priced competitively.

Licensing options are either a monthly pay for use option or a contract option.

The solution can get rather pricey. It should be more reasonable. It's our main complaint about the product - the total cost of ownership is just too high. We aren't buying licenses, we are buying cloud services.

This is a subscription-based product. This is not an expensive product but it would be an improvement if the price were cheaper. Google Cloud, for example, is cheaper.

The price of the solution is fair compared to competitors.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis. It's a pay-as-you-go model. Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

They have different pricing models for each suite of services. For example, if you are with EC2; E2 has spot instances and EC2 has on instances. You can pay upfront or you can reserve an instance. You can pay upfront or you can on an annual basis for certain machines, and you can keep them up which you get quite a competitive discount. You can take spot instances, as in certain predefined instances, that you can spin up when you need it, but those ten to be expensive because it's ad-hoc. You can also just go with the normal EC2 instances that are charged at the usual pricing rate. For us, it's use-case specific and we move between all three pricing options. Price can always be cheaper.

It's expensive. It should be cheaper.

The pricing is confusing. Sometimes there are hidden charges.

It would be ideal if the solution cost the customer less. It's expensive right now.

Pricing, I would rate a five out of ten. AWS is very expensive. It's paid on a monthly basis and you have to pay for the resources that you use. There is no licensing in AWS, you pay per usage.

The prices are somewhat on the higher side. It would help if they can bring it down, especially for the sporting segment and for on-demand instances.

It is much more expensive than any other cloud provider.

It's expensive. It costs you an arm and a leg. It's just about your expertise to do it on-prem versus in the cloud. I think it's more cost-effective to do it on-prem, but not everybody has a lab or the capital equipment budget to staff a lab. So, they are defaulting to using a service. That's the trade-off. If you're going to scale, most of the time, people are going to build it in-house. To get development started and to get things moving quickly, the cloud providers offer a valuable service. The biggest charge is for storage, moving data back and forth, and the ingress and egress charges.

We are happy with the pricing.

The solution is set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's very convenient. The pricing could always be better, but it's pretty darn good. We're looking into some options for some pricing improvements through some Amazon partners. There are not any additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

Licensing can be purchased on a yearly basis, which is an auto-renewal. We also have an on-demand on-pay purchase. If, for example, we have provisions for other things and we have a three-peak season then we add more core, more hardware for the on-premises machines. During those periods it is on-demand but the rest of the time it is licensed with a yearly subscription. The pricing is reasonable.

The pricing can be very difficult to determine due to the fact that there is so much selection.

Due to currency fluctuations in Turkey, we find the product to be on the more expensive side. There are other, cheaper options on the market.

When it comes to pricing, not all applications require that much performance. That's the reason why other cloud markets are also catching up, because the two predominantly high-performance platforms, AWS and GCP, are almost the same. Looking at the primary market for AWS, I see that there's a lot of customers who have only mid-level performance requirements, because you will have all these normal applications such as online auction websites, gaming applications, voice applications, and so on. These are not, for example, large monitoring applications, financial independents, or brick and mortar companies. So AWS caters to about 40% of the market when it comes to general applications. As it happens, in many cases, you simply don't need the high-performance offerings from AWS, nor the innovative products from Google Cloud Platform, which can come with large price tags.

I work on the technology side, I don't work on the financial side. Therefore, I really don't have any clue how much it costs.

The price could be better.

For our infrastructure, the cost is approximately $25 per device, and you have to include the other tools that we have in the cloud, for a total of approximately $200,000 per year. Our tools included several databases and Kubernetes. If the price was a little bit cheaper, I would consider this solution to be a ten out of ten.

The pricing of the solution is quite good. It's very reasonable and very affordable. That said, I don't deal with billing and licensing directly and therefore don't have the exact numbers in relation to how much we pay.

This is a subscription-based service and there are licensing fees.

The price can be better.

Pricing is reasonable, but as your usage goes up, AWS has a provision for businesses, and there's an option of locking it for three years. I think that they also give discounts. Although, as your scale of operation goes up, I think the price probably becomes too high. As a startup business, it's very well priced, but if a number of transactions go up, clients have voiced that they are in a situation and feel a type of pressure and desire to move out of AWS. They feel this way only once the scale of operation goes beyond a critical mass or critical threshold. It becomes a completely managed service beyond a point, and then it no longer remains cost-effective. Our usage goes up as well as the monthly recurring costs. So the price is something they should definitely look at. They should look at some kind of cost or price optimization, as the scale grows up large, the more the economies of scale keep in. They should try to become more competitive.

The costing model is very confusing. The cost is on a monthly basis. We are happy with the pricing.

When it comes to professional certification in AWS, I implore others to study hard before your exams because $300 is a painful waste of money if you fail. With AWS products, there is a steep learning curve and I think there are so many aspects because it is really an ecosystem. If you are committed to reducing costs, or increasing performance, or optimizing in any manner, you have to know the solution really well. I think the best way to achieve this is by experience, but if you don't have any experience, studying hard is the next best thing to do.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. I believe we are satisfied with the current pricing. Otherwise, we would have switched to another vendor.

Amazon AWS is really cost-effective. But the number of choices that you have to make can make the pricing very difficult. You have so many options, so it can be quite difficult to get into pricing.

The product is an a la carte service. It offers a set of microservices that are associated with it. Therefore, the solution pricing varies quite a bit. The pricing could be more competitive. If a company is questioning whether it's cheaper than owning a server yourself and running a server yourself, the general answer to the total cost of ownership is yes, it is cheaper. However, if you have to move data around a lot, it will not be cheaper.

AWS is expensive and the cost should be reduced.

There is a cost for any components you get. AWS is not an expensive product.

I think it should be less expensive. There are many variables involved in pricing, such as data transfer, and several other things. You have to be very precise, and really detailed, and account for each and every thing. Only then can you do an estimation of how much the application hosting will cost you. You can't afford to be missing a single piece. There are a lot of pieces that get embedded into costing for each service. So, it's complicated, and I really wish it should have been simpler.

The price could be lower. Currently, we spend between $300 to $1,000 dollars a month to use this solution. We try to avoid using a license if we can.

Its price is kind of okay. When we do a migration from on-premises to the cloud, we typically use the lift-and-shift model. Based on the studies that we have done, cost savings are definitely there when we moved from on-premises to the cloud.

Considering the kind of services they provide and the space they play in, compared to other solutions like Microsoft and Google, I think they've done a pretty good job with their pricing. The pricing tiers; I like the way that they have dynamically structured the pricing mechanism; however, for small players, it's pretty expensive. They're a successful company so I suppose many clients are willing to pay that kind of money for the services that they provide.

The Oracle licensing is higher than it is with Amazon AWS.

I find that Amazon AWS is expensive.

The calculating of costs is quite difficult. There are all kinds of variables to consider and it's all very unclear. It's my understanding that our company is charged a few hundred dollars on a monthly basis.

AWS pricing Reasonable & affordable by any business size, Small, Medium or large.

Before choosing you can read other opinions and opt for the best tool that has aesthetic value and focus that is on par with Amazon AWS.

I think the pricing becomes a problem as the IT organization grows. They need to give better pricing when companies grow.