We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Google Cloud Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering VMware, Amazon, VMware, and other competitors of Google Cloud. Updated: November 2021.
552,305 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Google Cloud competitors and alternatives

MT
Principal Consultant at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Consultant
Top 20
This helps us meet multiple requirements other PaaS solutions do not but there is a lot of room for improvement

Pros and Cons

  • "It is a flexible solution that is straightforward to use."
  • "Stability can suffer in the context of a large architecture."

What is our primary use case?

I work with our enterprise architecture. In my network, there are almost 400 total applications. I have been working here for almost six months on a network migration and in those six months, I have been working with many of those applications that have been included with the involvement of Azure in the migration.   

We are migrating everything from the old network to a new architecture. There are multiple teams that I work with and people work with me throughout the organization. I review all the target architectures and the deployment and everything that comes along with the pieces of the migration that involve Azure. Any issues, large or small, I have to look into. These issues might be simple certificate issues or they may involve multiple interfaces that need to be used for a solution.  

Because we have a very complex system, it is not easy to complete the migration. The landscape also has a mixture of different technologies and platforms. If I have to customize, I just get a Terraform script or ARM template from a developer who is assigned to that task. I review all that stuff that they give to me.  

When we went to the version of Azure that we use now, there are certain solutions that we created. If we had trouble, we worked with Microsoft to create that solution for our organization and the problems that needed to be solved.  

We define our own solutions with Microsoft that are not available in the open market. Because of the way we have used Azure, we do not really have a very focused end-product. It is a highly customized product that we have built using many tools.  

Azure is now a mixture of solutions. There are certain applications, which are IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) applications, where we just go and use them. Then there are certain applications that are a mixture of IaaS and PaaS (Platform as a Service). For certain parts, we use private clouds, public clouds, or hybrid clouds. We originally wanted to use more public clouds, but as we proceed, we are moving into more hybrid mechanisms. In the future, I don't know exactly what direction we will take because the technologies and the climate are changing so quickly.  

But right now, we are only using Azure with images being created from the existing architecture. For Azure, we use private cloud, public cloud, and mixed, or hybrid cloud as needed and all of these work together.  

In the future, we may go for some specific function-based services or even open-market APIs. We can use open APIs with Azure. API management is also possible. So there are a lot of permutations and combinations that go with each application based on sizing and NFR (Non-functional Requirements) validation.  

For Microsoft Azure, we use the product itself as a platform, I work mostly with their services. These can be PaaS services or DNS services, monitoring services, storage services — basically all the supporting services that are available to us with Azure. Anything that is not available, we try to build on PaaS. If the services we want are not available, I have to do a complete fabrication.  

So we use mostly PaaS services for most of the supporting services and then we work further in solution optimization, which is something we can accomplish through Azure. Ultimately all that depends on the budget. If a company is ready to spend on a cloud solution, an ROI (Return on Investment) model helps. The amount of customizations and the real need for a solution comes out of the realities of the ROI.  

Our contracts are based on supplying solutions for what the customer needs. If they have selected that a particular application will be available and make this a system mandate which we have to flow, then we have to keep those applications. Azure is one of the tools that we are using to help make these kinds of customizations and to meet their expectations after the migration.  

How has it helped my organization?

Azure gives us a different form of PaaS to work with during our migration and helps us to meet multiple requirements that current solutions do not provide in any one product. 

What is most valuable?

One of the most valuable things about Azure, I think, is that it is pretty straightforward. There are well-defined processes and it is not a bad product to work with. I only work on Azure right now most of the time. I cannot directly compare it with other solutions in the present situation because it is not always practical to consider every solution. Certain platforms on the market are very strong with other services. For example, Kubernetes on RedHat Openhift is better for working with AWS. But I have to ask from a usability, a complexity and a budget standpoint if that is really required.  

If I do my work and my applications are sorted out well in advance, I do not have any issues. From a user perspective — not from a cloud architect or enterprise architect perspective — my requirements are being met. As long as these requirements are met, I do not see anything as a showstopper. If there is a showstopper which I think I absolutely can not solve with Azure and I think another solution would handle, then possibly we may go into a multi-cloud scenario.  

That is also a limitation for our organization. The goal is never to seek complexity. Personally, I think there is no direct comparison between what solution is better and what solution is worse. There are only solutions that work or are capable of doing something and those solutions which can not do it, or were not designed to do it, or do not want their product to do it, et cetera.  

Part of my place in working with these solutions as part of my process is working with products I am comfortable with. So the more that I use Azure, the more comfortable I get with what it can do as a solution, and the more comfortable I am using it. If I started using AWS more, I would get more comfortable with AWS and maybe incorporate that more heavily in the solutions.  

What needs improvement?

There are some small things that could be done to improve Azure. I think they should actually do more to implement function as a service. It is a completely separate capability that they currently do not address. Function as a service can be a completely different scheme altogether than PaaS or IaaS which it does quite well.  

For an example of a FaaS, I think the Azure product can be stronger in terms of storage. I would like to see it have better management systems as a service specifically for managing documents. Right now they are handled as a more generalized object.  

Say Azure came out with Microsoft Document Management and it was very strong as a service. It would not have to be deployed as a complete infrastructure. I would be able to use that as a service inside my organization and it is a product that any organization can use.  

The question is what is the separate USP (Unique Selling Point) that Microsoft will provide to the user that would fit a unique need when making FaaS solutions available. Document management systems have already been proven to be very popular by Google. Microsoft Office uses OneDrive storage. There may be a better way to promote document management in a more general PaaS. Sometimes it is very useful to virtualize a platform or an infrastructure, but in the same way, it is sometimes valuable to virtualize a function. Applications may be a collection of functions.  

It is this type of branching out of services that Azure can do within the structure they already have.  

They are targeting Azure into specific domains and not working as much with open-source as they could. That would be helpful. I think eventually this approach will just drive the competition away. If I have a product that is very good for manufacturing as a function — something like is being done with Edge — it might be beneficial for Azure to be able to tie in this FaaS and let manufacturing clients start working with the solution without having to reach outside of Azure. Right now that I do not see that happening and it is an opportunity that Microsoft is missing with Azure.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I am responsible for designing our migration, so I have to work with Azure to define the parts of that solution. I had previously been using AWS mostly for personal services so I was familiar with PaaS platforms, but I have now also been using Azure exclusively for the last six months to supplement the functionality we require.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The product is stable. There are a few qualifications attached to that.  

I think the stability of Azure varies depending on the workloads. It is more stable from the perspective of how it behaves in a mid-size deployment. For a very, very large implementation, I have yet to see that same kind of inherent stability. I believe it is because of the complexity of the client's system or architecture.  

You may be able to say that if it is more of a Microsoft product landscape, then possibly it is more stable in general. The more that there is a mixture of technologies, then it will tend to be less stable. No application can be stable in every circumstance.  

As the project I am engaged in is very large, we have experienced some episodes of instability. We solve the stability problems as we go along to a great extent. But I think there are a lot of situations that have to be dealt with in real-time. Though we have direct contact with a Microsoft team architect, it is difficult for them at times to just jump in and solve an issue. You can not usually solve a problem instantly looking down at it from 55,000 feet when the situation on the ground is very, very complex.  

At first, they only have generalized solutions to your problem. I think they need an extension of the existing team. This would be like a core team to work with client organizations to do case studies to define patterns in what is causing instabilities.  

Because Azure is cloud technology and cloud comes with its own problems, these bleed over into Azure stability. All these patterns that contribute to instability have to come out in order to be solved. As Microsoft collects more case studies and more knowledge of where these problems tend to occur, this should enable them to stabilize the product against those issues.  

Overall, I would say Microsoft Azure is a stable solution, but even as a stable solution, it usually has some bugs or glitches.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

As of today, we have almost 1,000 people using the solution. We have a very big migration project that will last for the next four to five years before it is completed. They have many applications and many users for those applications. If the volume of users or applications were to scale, that should not be a problem.  

How are customer service and technical support?

I do not really have much direct contact with the Azure or Microsoft support teams. We have a separate team for that. I have a great architect that I work with here (Sweeden). But if an issue comes up, the application team goes to work on it to support the resolution. It is their option to contact Azure to raise that issue or resolve it themselves.  

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I was using AWS before Azure, but I was using it mostly for my own personal needs. I was deploying my own applications. I used it for about two years but not from a company perspective. I deployed my own applications in the public cloud and loaded them there for use at a personal level.  

In the company right now, I am only using Microsoft Azure. The company itself is using everything, really. At this point, my experience in the company is specialization as the person who is helping to utilize Azure.  

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was simple and it is simple for a simple application. If I want to build with a simple application, I simply go do that. But if I have a very heavy interface-based application, then the choices become more difficult and involved.  

If I have a WebSphere application, that is easy. A complex platform or a complex interface dependence becomes difficult to implement because of restrictions. If I can not simply go and deploy as it is, obviously it is more complex to deploy in the system.  

For a small company with a typical landscape of Microsoft technology, it becomes very easy to work with Azure. It is possible to go through that setup by yourself and test your servers and the entire functionality. 

After deployment, you will require maintenance. We can not simply have a production list and push everything out. You need pre-production, testing, and then deployment. All that has to be done on Azure.  

There are a lot of things you will have to work out with security certificates. Meanwhile, things keep on changing in the product itself. New upgrades keep on rolling out. If the old version does not support the new upgrade, then you will need to get involved with patching and other upgrades to take care of the issues that are introduced.  

We have a dedicated team for maintenance. We know we need to do testing and that is why we created tasks for that. But, generally, I think complexities in the setup depend upon what applications you are building. Simple applications and simple systems make for simple deployment.  

What about the implementation team?

We are working with the vendor directly. We also have contacts with Microsoft. Microsoft directly provides us all the tools and information we need for implementations.  

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing of Azure depends on the build of what you prepare. You can optimize everything, and with Azure, you can optimize your utility and costs. For example, say you create a subscription and you want to do more backups and you want a private cloud for that. This will affect your cost differently than if you do not add the backups with Azure or if you add the services with a public or hybrid cloud.  

We have very good, large contracts with big organizations. We do very high-level analytics and modeling to predict outcomes. For example, we may show that a certain solution that we implement with Azure will be likely to reduce a company's cost from the current level to 50% over the next five years. That, to me, is important when considering the cost of a subscription. It is not just the cost perspective that is important, but the ROI as well.  

What other advice do I have?

I would definitely recommend Azure as a solution because it is a popular product by a major brand and it is very easy to use. I think those people I would recommend it to should normally be those who understand the cloud and the advantages and disadvantages. I use it for a lot of things and I do not see any problems. I love it now as a solution so I would recommend it. But if I have a different experience with another very large migration project using a different product, I would have to compare Azure with that. I may get more comfortable with the other product for reasons I have not discovered yet.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Microsoft Azure as a seven-out-of-ten. It is a good product and I love using it but it could do even more and has a lot of possibilities to grow as part of a relatively new technology. The future is more open than closed to the possibilities.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Allister MacLeod
DevOps Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Straightforward to set up, helpful support, and the Object Storage is useful for system backups

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the static IP address, which has been very helpful for being able to log into the same address over the course of more than a decade."
  • "I would like to see more seamless integration with backup, although it's pretty easy to do."

What is our primary use case?

I have a single 4GB model Linode and I use it as a personal server. I originally set it up to act as an email server, just for my own personal vanity domain. I don't use it for that anymore, but it's proved to be useful for many other things.

Right now, I run a Minecraft server on it and I also use it for a little bit of software development. I also use it as a jump host, if I need a stable place to SSH from my laptop to get to other online resources. It means that I only have a single point that I go through to get to the other stuff that I need.

How has it helped my organization?

I would say it's very important that Linode offers a relatively small, but well-focused set of cloud computing services because it differentiates them from AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud by being focused and by having a more personal touch. I could probably get the same compute power for a little bit less from other providers, but the value of the continuity and the high quality of support is worth it. It's rare that I need to reach out to support, but when I do, the support is great.

Even though I use it for personal use, some of the things that I use it for are in a software development capacity. For example, the ability to experiment with running my own Mercurial server, Git server, and source control servers on this machine have leveled up my own knowledge of those products in a way that I think a more managed solution wouldn't. Having the tools in-hand of just a Linux box that I can play with, and that I can wipe and reimage at will, is more useful than a physical machine by virtue of that virtual rewriting. It is also more useful than a more abstracted managed service, just in that I can get my hands dirty and do rapid experimentation.

Linode has helped me to accelerate innovation and even though I'm not using this in an enterprise way, it has improved the way I innovate with respect to personal stuff. For example, it has helped with the things that I'm trying to learn and the things that I'm trying to do. Setting up a Minecraft server is a good example of that. Being able to read some of the documentation that Linode has about setting up a Minecraft server on your VPS, and just learning and figuring stuff out, has been valuable.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the static IP address, which has been very helpful for being able to log into the same address over the course of more than a decade.

Another useful feature is being able to have multiple system images that I can play with. I mostly use Ubuntu Linux, but if I want to play with a new version of Ubuntu, I can pretty easily add that. It's been super useful to upgrade my system over the years.

I just recently started using the Object Storage and Backup features, as well. Having good backups for peace of mind and disaster recovery is very nice as well.

Object Storage has been key, for me. I don't have a strong notion of exactly when Linode introduced Object Storage, but it's been very useful for me, for instance, in backing up my Git server, in addition to the whole node backup. The fact that I can interact from the command line with the Linode Object service to back up specific datasets, is super cool. I know they didn't have it when I first started using Linode and I think it's been introduced fairly recently, within the last couple of years.

The Linode documentation is superb. 

What needs improvement?

I would like to see more seamless integration with backup, although it's pretty easy to do.

Having more on-demand features would be helpful. For example, if for a little while I wanted to have four Linodes instead of just a single one, it seems like it's a little bit more difficult than spinning up an EC2 instance in AWS. It isn't a lot harder, but it could be improved nonetheless.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Linode for more than a decade, since 2008 or 2009.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is excellent. It's very rare that there is an interruption in the service. I think that the reboot notices that I get, that aren't related to me doing stuff, are less than one a year. I think, in some cases, it's been four or five years between needing to have any kind of stability-related events on the machine. I can't think of any outages in the entire course of me using it, that anything with any kind of significant impact.

Part of the thing that I value about the single Linode that I have is that it is a very steady, stable known quantity. I don't have to worry about all the institutional weight that I do with interacting with AWS, which I do a lot from work.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Thinking about it from an operations point of view, I think that I would have a bit of a harder time scaling in Linode than I would in AWS, but not a whole lot harder. Given the Kubernetes support, I would imagine that that makes the process even easier. That said, I have not tried Kubernetes so I really have insufficient data to be sure.

It's not likely that I'm going to significantly increase my usage in the future. I might bump up to a higher size if I find that I need more CPU or RAM. Or, I might play around with having two to four Linode nodes. But beyond that, it's unlikely that I'm going to expand much.

I will definitely keep using Linode for as long as it is as stable and reasonably priced as it is, but at a steady one machine for my personal purposes.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support from Linode is great. All of the times that I've reached out, it's been through email or through the web portal. It's always felt good and it felt like the person responding understood what I was asking about and solved it very quickly.

In terms of flexibility and overall responsiveness, the support is very good to excellent. Certainly, everyone that I've interacted with, in the fairly rare occasions that I do need support, have been very knowledgeable about the product and very good at understanding what issues I'm having and how to solve them.

I would say compared to AWS, AWS support varies a lot in terms of responsiveness and whether you've got a paid support plan. Sometimes, it does take a fair bit of back-and-forth with AWS support to get to the crux of the problem. I've never felt that back-and-forth was as necessary, that we get to the crux of the problem and solve it much more quickly with Linode.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to using Linode, all of the machines that I had managed were all physical. I had my own personal machines and machines that I built for work, but they were all physical PCs or other architectures that I had to actually open up a case, and if I needed more RAM, I had to put the sticks in myself.

In comparison to a physical server, Linode has definitely saved me money. I never want to build a server again. Basically, if you build a physical machine and it is obsolete within two to five years, you've got to buy and recreate the whole thing again. Generally, the hardware is going to get cheaper over time, but I think that unless I were really putting a microscope on getting the cheapest components for building, Linode will cost less.

In some contexts, albeit not mine with just one or a few machines, it would make sense to build them. However, not having to worry about it and just letting Linode take care of the hardware upgrades is probably saving me money. I don't know if it would save a very tightly tuned hardware IT team money, but that's a completely different scale than what I'm looking at.

Linode was my first experience with virtual cloud servers and virtual machines, in general. Not too long after I started using Linode, I did start doing more with VMware, with an on-premises, physical server hosting multiple virtual machines. It was not too long after that when I got into AWS for work.

How was the initial setup?

I found the initial setup to be fairly straightforward. It's so long ago that the details are fuzzy but I recall that I set up the account, chose names for things, picked which size I wanted, and then launched it. Within, what at that time, was an astonishingly short amount of time, I was able to log into it. It's just gotten better from there.

I didn't require an implementation strategy, although I think that's peculiar to using it as a single thing for personal use. I had the notion that I wanted a persistent Linux machine that was always on, and that I could get to from anywhere, and Linode seemed to fit the bill.

Over the years, I've used it for a lot of different purposes and it's adapted well to that. So I would say in this case, I didn't need a whole lot of planning. If I were to use Linode for a more complex deployment, I would want to plan it out, figure out what the costs are, figure out the network topology, and the other relevant details.

What about the implementation team?

Linode offers worldwide coverage via multiple data centers, although I don't personally need that. It's a very attractive feature for sure, but since I just have the one virtual private server and it's just for me and for my friends connecting to it, I want it to be geographically close to me to have a low ping. I think it's located in New Jersey, and that's good for me, being in New England. While global coverage is not super important to me, in so far as it contributes to the health of Linode in general, I'm all for it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing model is simple, and that's one of the reasons that I've stuck with Linode for so long. When I was on the $20 Linode, I knew for a fact that on the first of every month, my credit card would get charged $20. That meant my Linode was available constantly.

At this point, I'm paying more like $35 per month for a slightly bigger machine, and the backup, and the object service. But again, I know that it's exactly $35 every month and I can budget for it. The simplicity and the consistency of that billing and pricing are quite valuable to me. Whereas with AWS, it's a crapshoot. The on-demand pricing means it's flexible and I only pay for what I use, but it's also much less predictable.

It is tough to determine whether using Linode has saved me money compared to what I would pay with other cloud providers. I don't think it has on a pure numbers basis, but in opportunity cost and higher-level budget planning, I think that the consistency probably has saved me money. I would have spent more time trying things, allocating things that I might not need, and so on. Ultimately, it saved me capital in the long run but it is not necessarily something that I can put a dollar figure on.

In comparison to everything else, predictability is the key aspect of the pricing model. With it being a known quantity that I can budget for every month, it frees up brain cycles to do everything else.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

In my personal capacity, at this point, I have my Linode and I have a personal AWS account, and I use them for different purposes, but to similar degrees, or similar magnitudes. I find that just looking at it from a strict CPU and RAM horsepower perspective, EC2 is just marginally cheaper, but there are different features that I value in different places.

I took a brief look at some other things like Azure, Google Cloud Engine, and DigitalOcean, and I found that when I was looking, and this was probably about five or six years ago, that a lot of things that I wanted were pretty comparable in terms of capabilities and pricing. A lot of it came down to what I valued, in terms of the positioning, and support, and documentation, where I very much like Linode's documentation, especially, and support.

Of the others that I evaluated, DigitalOcean seemed the friendliest. And then, AWS and Azure were the behemoths, the 800-pound gorillas in the room.

What other advice do I have?

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using Linode is the oldest lesson, which is just that a virtual cloud server has the availability and the flexibility that I couldn't get from physical at the time, or even now, for that matter. It's a key component in having something that's useful, having a machine that you can log into and do things on, in a consistent way, regardless of where I am or even what machine I'm connecting to it from.

My key advice for anybody who is looking into Linode would be just to dive right in. Pick it up and play around with it and if you find that it's not for you, try something else. But if you find that you love it, keep going.

In summary, Linode is a good product and I've been extremely satisfied with it for exactly the purposes I use it for. I have been pleased with it since I started using it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Other
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
ITCS user
Technical Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Plays well with MuleSoft CloudHub and gives us access to proven infrastructure, tools, and technologies

Pros and Cons

  • "The reason I like AWS is that they have a large market share and a large presence. When it comes to our use case, a big positive is that MuleSoft and AWS are working together very well. So instead of competing against each other, they're meshing together."
  • "There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all."

What is our primary use case?

We use Amazon AWS together with MuleSoft's CloudHub, because CloudHub is an extension of Amazon VPC. As part of that, when we set up the infrastructure and everything, we will be interacting with Amazon products. And with big customers, we have data in the private cloud and within that private cloud we have the MuleSoft CloudHub which is connected through the organization's private cloud to a specific geographical AWS public cloud. Regarding security, we also have a number of layers there, too.

As an example, we have seen approximately 300 ETFs developed for different areas, e.g. for United Arab Emirates and other customers. And the internal customers are also using AWS. All in all, there are approximately 10,000+ users who are using it, and things are going pretty well.

What is most valuable?

The reason I like AWS is that they have a large market share and a large presence. When it comes to our use case, a big positive is that MuleSoft and AWS are working together very well. So instead of competing against each other, they're meshing together.

What needs improvement?

There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all.

One thing is that sometimes it becomes a problem when troubleshooting our tools because when you have some things local and some things remote on a foreign server, it can get complicated. We find that sometimes it's a challenge to gather the necessary information from logs and such because you need the proper agreement to capture those details. 

In the future, I would like to see Amazon move more into local clouds, by capturing more of the small market. Nowadays, spending a lot of money is not on the list of priorities for many companies, especially considering what's going on in the world. We want to leverage whatever amount is available and still get all the benefits of new AWS cloud offerings.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Amazon AWS for a couple of years now. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The infrastructure of AWS is very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

AWS is very scalable. 

How are customer service and technical support?

I've never worked with technical support personally because we have a lot of network engineers to handle that. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

What other advice do I have?

Overall, AWS is pretty good and I can definitely recommend it because it's a proven product. When you're solving big problems, you want — first and foremost — proven infrastructure, technology, tools, and mechanisms. Then slowly, you'll be able to remove dependencies by moving to others as needed. So for project initiation and everything, you get to rely on something which is rock solid and proven in the industry with a long track record.

I know AWS can be an expensive option, but it doesn't have to be out of budget if you choose the appropriate level of product for your performance requirements. They can provide high-performance computing resources, while at the same time catering to the mid-level market with lower performance offerings. 

Previously, in the initial days of AWS, back in 2005/2006, there were some concerns about security and such things, but nowadays there is not much to worry about because a lot of those concerns have been taken care of. Recently, there has been another shift in attitude towards them, because not everybody is a big fan of public cloud because of what is happening in the world with respect to data privacy and everything.

Regardless, the three big names of Microsoft, Google, and AWS are really grabbing the market, and IBM is also catching up well. Because of the data privacy concerns, however, I do see some customization in European countries who are interested in interacting with the cloud market at a more local level.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Abdul-Rasool
Senior Practice Manager - Head of SAP at a tech consulting company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
A flexible platform with good support and minimal downtime

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution does provide quite a lot of support, upgrades, automated batch updates, etc."
  • "Our data centers are in Europe and come under GDPR regulations, and this doesn't apply to the Middle East yet. It causes a lot of confusion."

What is our primary use case?

SAP's Enterprise Cloud platform is basically used for deploying the SAP ERP systems on top of the cloud. Most of the customers we have want to move onto a cloud with pre-configured setups. Our specialization is the migration of entire SAP ERP on-premise solutions to the cloud. 

What is most valuable?

The solution does provide quite a lot of support, upgrades, automated batch updates, etc. 

It's a flexible platform for customers who are looking for ready-made solutions and support.

The solution is managed and supported by SAP. 

The most important aspect of the solution for our client is the feed. If you manage the heavy enterprise applications and need to generate a report, a C level report, for CEO or CFO level members of the organization, it's ten times faster than the on-premises option.

There's minimum downtime during migrations. This platform is very effective.

Only every quarter will customers need to get system upgrades or patches. This happens mostly at night or on weekends, lessening downtime even further. The updates of the system will happen through the cloud. It is a very good feature for the customer. 

What needs improvement?

There are a lot of dependencies on SAP. A customer doesn't have much flexibility to go and update the systems as they wish. SAP dictates this. If a customer needs an update immediately, they won't get it; they'll have to wait for the quarterly update.

Sometimes we are not able to provide the other services that a customer wants. SAP needs to offer some kind of flexibility in terms of configurations and modifications from the customer standpoint. Some kinds of activities that SAP monopolizes we should be able to perform, for the customer as a service provider.

There's a concern about the localization of the data centers. For a Dubai-base customer, there are a lot of concerns. We need our own local data centers to manage all of the services. Instead, there are various data centers all over the world. The lack of localization is a concern.

Our data centers are in Europe and come under GDPR regulations, and this doesn't apply to the Middle East yet. It causes a lot of confusion.

The solution charges money when companies integrate other solutions. There should be a simpler, cheaper way to integrate.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for five or six years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Clients don't seem to have issues with stability. We have not heard of any stability problems. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of the solution isn't ideal. It's something that could be improved upon.

Right now, we have more than 1000 users on the product.

The solution is perfect for big enterprises such as the Government Sector, as well as defense. It is highly used by these customers.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support that is provided is excellent. We have no complaints as to the level of support we've been given.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. We didn't find any complexities in the process.

What about the implementation team?

There is 100% dependency on system integrators. If the landscape is complex and it is not as straightforward as a cloud migration model, and there are a lot of interfaces and a lot of dependencies on third-party systems within the landscape, system integrators are necessary. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

There are licensing fees, but no ancillary costs on top of that. Users won't have to pay extra, for example, for support. They have contracts for three and five years. 

They do, however, charge extra for integrations.

What other advice do I have?

If a customer is looking for the latest innovations or products from SAP this solution is perfect for them. It also offers seamless integrations with other players. 

There are companies that you can use to layer on top of it. You can take the AWS platform and then put SAP on top of that. Or you can take Google cloud, or Azure, etc. 

It's a bit expensive compared to lead other platforms because the support is directly from SAP. However, it's quite good support.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Karthikeyan Sivasamy
Architect at a tech company with 201-500 employees
Vendor
Top 5Leaderboard
A easy initial setup with good dashboards and good documentation

Pros and Cons

  • "We don't run into any issues with bugs or glitches."
  • "The UX and UI could be improved on the AWS console."

What is our primary use case?

Lately, I've been using AWS Transcribe for transcriptions. I do have some videos that are a client requirement that convert meetings and videos into audio so that audio can be used as an input factor of the transcript can get transcribed.

What is most valuable?

AWS Transcribe is the most useful feature for us right now. It allows us to easily transcribe meetings and videos.

Overall, the solution has been very useful.

We don't run into any issues with bugs or glitches.

The customization is good.

We haven't had any security issues.

The solution offers very nice dashboards.

The initial setup is very easy. They offer good documentation, which helps the process along.

What needs improvement?

Currently, I can't think of any features that are lacking. It does everything we need it to right now.

The UX and UI could be improved on the AWS console.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for quite a long time. I started with it three years ago, now I think it's been more than two or three years at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is quite stable. I haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It seems to be reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I pretty much just use the solution for my own personal learning only. I'm currently working on ten projects. There is also a client that I'm working with. They will be buying their own AWS console and they'll be using it. I might just scale them out with it. 

Therefore, I haven't tried scaling yet. I may be trying to scale in a month or so.

I do plan to increase usage and take on more projects in the future.

How are customer service and technical support?

I really haven't dealt too much with technical support. Mostly, I've been able to use their existing documentation to get the help I need if I run into any issues.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is not complex. We found the implementation to be very straightforward and simple.

The product has very good documentation which I was able to access. It's on AWS and it helps us with aspects of the setup and troubleshooting.

The solution requires very little maintenance.

What about the implementation team?

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need the assistance of a reseller or consultant.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I looked into various cloud services, and I found the pricing to be all pretty much the same AWS is pretty standard industry pricing.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I did look at Googe and Azure before ultimately choosing AWS which seemed to fit my requirements a bit better.

What other advice do I have?

I'm an AWS partner.

I'm using the latest version of the solution at this time.

I just come to our AWS console and I can look for new releases. I do some quick demo's and I try to understand what the releases are all about. I might keep findings for two or three months.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Their technology is top-notch.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Although when I first started using it, I wasn't the biggest fan, I've found it's met all of my requirements nicely.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Get our free report covering VMware, Amazon, VMware, and other competitors of Google Cloud. Updated: November 2021.
552,305 professionals have used our research since 2012.