AWS CloudFormation Reviews

It allows us to use infrastructure as code. We write code to deploy resources on AWS. While we primarily use Terraform for deploying AWS resources, there are situations where we use CloudFormation stacks. It depends on the client's preference.

We have deployment pipelines set up to manage resources across multiple environments and accounts. When we want to deploy or modify something, we specify the target account ID and details within the deployment configuration. Changes to our code repository trigger the pipeline, which then executes actions on those specific accounts.

When it comes to automating things, the pipeline needs preparation for deployment. AWS calls this CodePipeline. In my last project, we used CodePipeline, though for CI/CD, we used Jenkins rather than AWS solutions. AWS CodePipeline is similar to Jenkins or GitHub Actions. 

Whenever you make changes to your CloudFormation source code, it will trigger the pipeline in CodePipeline. Our pipeline has steps for source control, build, test, and finally, deployment. This AWS DevOps functionality is the most valuable feature for automating things.

I appreciate the flexibility of infrastructure as code. With CloudFormation, we can define ground rules, control usage limits, and scale our infrastructure up or down programmatically. Having this level of control through code on infra is a major benefit. That's the beauty of CloudFormation.  

If you work with multiple cloud providers, it's better to go with Terraform. CloudFormation stacks cannot be used for multiple vendors. For example, you cannot create resources for Azure or Google Cloud Platform (GCP) using a CloudFormation stack.

I have been using it for the past two and a half years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. I haven't faced any issues with the stability yet. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The reason for the eight is that we cannot directly integrate Control Tower with CloudFormation. For different services, AWS offers specific resources for scalability. For example, with EC2, we use Auto Scaling Groups to scale instances based on traffic or usage.

Within a CloudFormation stack, we can set up and create an Auto Scaling Group. So indirectly, CloudFormation facilitates the scaling of other resources, even though the stack itself isn't inherently scalable.

In my organization, there are probably around 800 to 1000 users working with AWS in general.

We are a service provider. We work with AWS as a service provider. Our clients include Toyota, BMW Canada, and BMW Germany. I recently worked with Vira Mobility in the US, and now I'm working in the banking sector. We provide CloudFormation to manage our clients' cloud infrastructure.

Customer service and support are available. If we raise tickets for issues on AWS, they will contact us as soon as possible. I think it's good. 

And, if we face any issues, they will resolve them quite well. The communication is also good.

Positive

For Toyota, we used Terraform. For BMW, we also used Terraform. For some FinOps purposes, we use CloudFormation stacks to have resources under control. 

However, in most cases, we use Terraform for infrastructure management and deployment. Currently, I'm onboarding to a new project where they use CloudFormation more heavily than Terraform.

So, I've mostly worked on Terraform. I use CloudFormation stacks purely for specific tasks that Terraform cannot offer.

The initial setup depends on how large your infrastructure is. If the infrastructure is small, it won't be too tough. But if the infrastructure is huge and we need to deploy across multiple accounts, like 20 to 30, then it's going to be quite difficult. 

Also, keep in mind that we can't use CloudFormation to create organization member accounts within AWS Control Tower. Aside from that, the initial setup is easier if you know what you're doing. For a beginner, it's kind of difficult. It might be better to start with Terraform as it's easier than CloudFormation.

So, the user does need some knowledge in order to do it.

AWS CloudFormation integrates with the existing CI/CD pipeline.

In CloudFormation, we configure our CodePipeline settings. Whenever you make changes to the source code, this triggers the pipeline. We can set this up in the AWS console. You can configure it to check your source code every 10 to 20 seconds. If there are changes, it will trigger the pipeline.

There's a particular team, the FinOps team, that handles the calculation of pricing. We do sometimes check the pricing for cost optimization purposes.

So, it's actually cheaper. In general, pricing within AWS is relatively affordable.

Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten. It's quite similar to Terraform and easy to manage – especially if you know AWS well. The thing is, the CloudFormation stack is going to create the resources, so knowledge of AWS is important. Overall, it's actually good.

If you are using only a single cloud provider, you can go with CloudFormation. For those focused solely on AWS, it's a good option.

However, if you work with multiple cloud providers, it's better to go with Terraform. CloudFormation stacks cannot be used for multiple vendors. For example, you cannot create resources for Azure or Google Cloud Platform (GCP) using a CloudFormation stack.

It helps to automate the process of creating and managing AWS resources. It allows defining the infrastructure as code using templates, which describe the desired state of the infrastructure. This approach makes it easy to replicate environments, track changes, and perform repeatable deployments.

It enables fast and efficient deployment of AWS resources and configurations through code templates. It facilitates sharing and deploying infrastructure configurations across different environments and locations. It provides automated resource management, allowing for updates and rollbacks to be easily managed.

Its infrastructure as code approach is the most valuable.

AWS CloudFormation allows you to use the code templates written in JSON and YAML, but not directly in Python. Adding this feature would be beneficial. You may use Python alongside CloudFormation for enhanced automation and management capabilities.

I have been using it for five years.

It offers good stability. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability capabilities eight out of ten.

The initial setup was relatively straightforward.

We witnessed a return on investment.

It provides assurance and confidence in the deployment of the environment, due to its infrastructure as code mode. It allows easy tracking of the changes, reviewing configurations, and ensuring that it aligns with requirements and best practices. I would rate it nine out of ten.

We support multiple internal developers and deploy and create new S3 buckets for them. We create new users and groups and also create the SNSQS for them. We also support multiple services like creating the Lambda function and have a principle of maintaining the correct privilege for the user. So we manage the AWS service in our organization and deploy the AWS CloudFormation templates to create that kind of AWS service.

It is easy to work from the console and deploy new database services. It is very user-friendly.

Creating the inline policies is not great, and they need to maintain it on a higher level. They create a discrepancy between multiple templates when we do the numbering of those stacks using AWS CloudFormation templates. When we created those stacks in my old organization, a bulk of stacks were automatically wrongly numbered. The filtering of those stacks was painful on the AWS CloudFormation site. I prefer Terraform to manage that.

We have been using this solution for a year at my organization, and I deploy the CloudFormation templates. I write them from scratch, and I deploy them. I extensively used it when I was working on the other cloud. We use the template format version from 2010. It is also deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable to an extent, and I rate the scalability a five out of ten. Five DevOps people use this solution.

We've used technical support, and I would rate them a seven out of ten.

I am unsure why we chose AWS CloudFormation, but we later realized that HashiCorp Terraform had more capability than the AWS CloudFormation templates. Initially, it was highly suggested by AWS to make use of CloudFormation at that time, so we started using it.

The initial setup is easy and not tough. I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten.

I don't remember the exact usage cost, but it isn't that expensive.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. It loses three points because of the disadvantage of the naming convention and the stack. Regarding advice, I would be careful when creating the stacks. There should be a proper naming convention that needs to be followed. If there isn't, the stacks will be more painful using the AWS CloudFormation.

AWS Cloud automation supports the creation of only AWS resources, and we use it to reduce the time needed to create resources. We create template files inside AWS CloudFormation to create multiple resources in AWS, such as EC2, S3, RDS, or Lambda functions. When we apply those files, the resources are created parallelly, reducing the time needed to create them.

AWS Cloud automation reduces the time needed to create AWS resources.

When I used AWS CloudFormation, I wrote the CloudFormation file. It would help all users if AWS improved the auto-generation of the CloudFormation file.

I have been using AWS CloudFormation for one year. 

I have not faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 10 to 15 users are using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support is faster and better than that of other cloud providers.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is neither easy nor difficult.

AWS CloudFormation's pricing is cheaper than that of other cloud providers.

I would recommend AWS CloudFormation to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

AWS CloudFormation is infrastructure as Code specific to AWS. It allows companies invested in AWS to codify their infrastructure, enabling faster deployment, tracking drift, and gaining visibility into the environment through the templates. This facilitates easy deployment in different regions.

Since AWS CloudFormation integrates well with the AWS platform, it facilitates faster deployment. Building templates for AWS services within the solution is also straightforward, making the process easier.

I would say the versioning feature is particularly useful. Ensuring that we have the right version and being able to track changes made by enabling versioning is valuable. Additionally, the ability to roll back to a previous stack in case of a bad update is good. 

We primarily utilize AWS S3 buckets for large-scale deployments to store and maintain our templates. We keep a copy of the templates in a restricted bucket. We deploy these templates using AWS CloudFormation, which provides a console for quick deployment. During deployment, we can monitor the provisioning results and quickly make any necessary changes.

The product should be made cloud-agnostic, allowing users to deploy the same environment with minimal tweaks across different cloud platforms, similar to Terraform. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have the ability to manage templates outside of the AWS environment. 

You need an enterprise agreement with AWS, meaning your company pays for the services. AWS delivers daily responses in the production environment, typically within five to ten minutes. However, in non-production environments, it might take up to 24 hours. Therefore, there could be delays in non-production environments, which may pause operations for a while.

Primarily, I use Terraform because I work across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud platforms. Terraform is more portable across different cloud providers than AWS CloudFormation, which is specific to AWS.

The tool's deployment depends on the person's knowledge and experience, but overall, I find it pretty easy to set up. Additionally, AWS offers various templates for various services within its platform. It doesn't require many resources to deploy. It does require some maintenance in terms of adding and removing resources or adjusting the environment to meet current specifications. However, maintaining the software or the template backbone falls within AWS's purview.

The tool is free for the AWS environment. 

I recommend AWS CloudFormation to any company that is heavily invested in AWS. However, for companies operating across multiple clouds or adopting a hybrid on-premise and cloud solution, I would not recommend it. I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

We use CloudFormation for deploying solutions. It's tested manually and then we write a script for CloudFormation. We then copy all the configurations that are needed to automate the process of bringing it to the cloud.

Scripting does just about everything needed to accomplish the task of reinstalling something from scratch. It's the combination of features that's important.  CloudFormation allows us to get the original system up and running in a much shorter time.

I'd like to see a better GUI than we currently have which is basically a script you write. If they were to add graphical components that would enable animation of the installation procedure it would be icing on the cake. We'd be able to preview the installation and visually see what's happening, whether or not anything is missing, and whether you can run parts of the installation in parallel.

I've used this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very scalable. We have some clients with dozens of users and others with thousands of users. 

We've had some experience with technical support and they are very good. 

Positive

The number of people required for the deployment and maintenance of CloudFormation depends on the complexity of the implementation. Deployment involves thorough testing and can be a little complex.

A company can lose a lot of money if a site goes down. CloudFormation helps prevent that loss by bringing things back to working order very quickly.

We chose CloudFormation because it's native to AWS and it's easier to script than Ansible. We use Ansible for taking care of the nitty-gritty details that CloudFormation is not geared towards.

It's important to be aware of the things this solution is appropriate for. We learned the hard way that for our more detailed needs we need to use Ansible. Don't expect CloudFormation to take care of everything. It sets things initially, and then Ansible runs local scripts to take care of the details.

I use AWS CloudFormation to automate my infrastructure, especially with DevOps engineering.

The solution has helped with automation. I don't have to worry about provisioning machines and ensuring everything is set up. AWS CloudFormation takes care of the entire infrastructure for me.

The solution is free to use, and its automation capabilities are really powerful. 

There could be better error handling. It would be a good way to improve the solution.

I have been using this solution for one year. I currently use the latest version. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It never fails. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. We have it as software as a service. 

We saw a hundred percent ROI. 

The pricing is not expensive. The cost depends on the resources you launch. So, you pay for the resources you use, not the other way around.

I would suggest to read the documentation first before you start. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The solution provides the most simplified way of managing resources.

AWS CloudFormation has improved our organization because it provides quick replication of all the infrastructure, and we can automate every process on the DevOp.

The most valuable feature of AWS CloudFormation is the simple tracking of infrastructure.

The speed of the replication process could improve. It can take some time to replicate that could use a speed increase.

In a new release, they should add multiple optimization release features.

I have been using AWS CloudFormation for approximately three years.

I rate the stability of AWS CloudFormation a ten out of ten.

I plan to increase the use of the solution in the future.

I rate the scalability of AWS CloudFormation a nine out of ten.

I rate the support of AWS CloudFormation a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of AWS CloudFormation is straightforward.

I have seen a return on investment using this solution after three years.

The price of the solution is good because it is scalable.

This is a powerful tool and you are able to increase efficiency and return employee workloads.

I rate AWS CloudFormation a nine out of ten.