The licensing model changes often. The prices for different regions are different.

The solution's price is good. 

The price of Amazon RDS is expensive. We pay for the monitoring and the uploading.

Amazon RDS is cheaper compared to other tools.

The cost is a critical factor, especially if you are not inclined to spend a significant amount, Amazon is the preferable choice. The substantial initial credit and cost-effectiveness make Amazon an attractive option.

Make sure you provision your MySQL RDS properly. Don't over or under-provision. 

Perform some benchmarks before migrating. Migrating to a new system is costly. You don't want to have your data migrated only to realize it performs much worse than before.

Amazon RDS is not a very expensive solution.

The solution’s pricing could be cheaper. Maintaining the geo-replication would be more expensive, and you need to set it up accordingly.

I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

The cost varies depending on our use and our database engine. RDS is the database, and AWS manages it for us. It is cheaper to host on a cloud machine ourselves. RDS increases the cost because it manages the database. It’s really, really good. The solution is fairly priced.

The solution is expensive.

In my case, MySQL is free, and if there are any costs, then it is much less than other solutions since all such things usually come bundled with the hardware. We don't pay separate license fees for MySQL, but the hardware cost depends on what machines we use.

On pricing, I would rate RDS six out of 10 because if you don't know how to optimize and use your tool properly, the cost might hurt you. It would've been great if they had some cost alerts. You can usually manage using CloudWatch, but a simple notification that your costs just went up sharply or you overspent would help. I know there are videos and instructions on AWS. I'm not saying it's not there. But when the technology is new to you, it's hard to know what went wrong. And certainly, if you're not looking at your bill, you will be shocked by the amount.

We had one or two bad instances or hiccups, but now we have everything under control. The licensing is fine for us, but it may be a challenge for new users.

Amazon RDS is a little costly, but it also reduces the number of full-time employees needed. We require fewer system admins or DBS because RDS reduces our workload. 

It's pay as you go. Once you are using it, you will get support. You don't need to buy a yearly license to get support. If we deployed our server there, we would get support from them.

The product is expensive. If Cisco needs two servers, Amazon uses four.

If we use the product wisely, we can optimize the cost. The cost depends on the kind of instance we use.

The solution is expensive. 

The solution's license was included in the payment of the cloud. On a scale from one to ten, where ten is the most expensive, and one is the cheapest, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

The solution's pricing needs improvement. I rate it as a six.

I do not have specific details about the pricing, but we use the solution on demand. I rate the pricing a six out of ten, with one being the most expensive and ten being the cheapest. We have to pay extra for monitoring services.

I am not aware of the licensing costs.

We use the community version of the solution. I believe we only pay for the storage, but I'm not sure how it works exactly.

The pricing of RDS is a little bit high compared to Microsoft. But we know that it is related to Microsoft licenses. However, it is a good price compared to other solutions.

Amazon RDS is less expensive than other solutions.

The price of Amazon RDS is reasonable.

I have found the price to be a little bit too expensive. 

Licensing fees are paid on an annual basis.

Amazon RDS is an expensive solution.

Amazon RDS could improve by reducing the price.

I rate the price of Amazon RDS an eight out of ten.

Cost always depends on usage

Across most of the database services, it had been a little expensive. It's not only Amazon. If you look at other cloud solution providers, they have to reconsider bringing the prices down. Some clients might not be able to reap their ROI the way that the pricing has been structured for RDS services. It was quite expensive.

Amazon RDS is quite expensive.

By using a combination of Reserve Instances and On-Demand pricing, you can reduce the cost.

Good amount of cost reduction in cloud but we need to have well defined monitoring rules to save cost even after hosted in cloud. You can scale-up and scale-down with minimal duration compare to on-prem DB Servers. Which add more cost benefits. 

We can BYOL (Bring Your Own License), if you already purchased for Microsoft SQL Server or for Oracle and use that during RDS launch. 

If you need to reduce licensing cost in database , we can migrate to 3 open source databases in AWS RDS : MySQL, PostgreSQL, and MariaDB.

Amazon Aurora RDS , which is compatible to MySQL Engine and PostgreSQL Engine can be used to get most benefit of RDS managed service with performance and cost since it is AWS native RDS.

While, with all services of Amazon, there is a starter option that is given for free, this starter offer is not enough for the development or the deployment of products. Each time you pass these limits, you have to pay and it's completely unpredictable.

The pricing can get very expensive. You pay a standard price, which is low, for a fixed reservation. However, if you exceed your limit, instantly, then the bill is increased tremendously. That's a drawback for the system. You have to provision very carefully and to make sure that you do not exceed the limit.

That said, after careful provisioning, it is a very cheap option. If you are successful at cloud provisioning, you won't need to pay much.

You do have to pay extra for technical support, even if you are on the free service tier.

Read the fine print carefully and always engage experts to carry out migration.

The price could be better.

I am using BYOL.

It is less expensive than SQL Server. We pay based on the usage on a monthly basis.