Amazon Web Services vs. IBM Power Virtual Server

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon Web Services
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing services. With over 165 services offered, AWS services can provide users with a comprehensive suite of infrastructure and computing building blocks and tools.
$0
per month
IBM Power Virtual Server
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
IBM presents their Power Systems Virtual Server as a scalable, cost-effective way to run IBM AIX, IBM i and Linux workloads​.N/A
Pricing
Amazon Web ServicesIBM Power Virtual Server
Editions & Modules
Free Tier
$0
per month
Basic Environment
$100 - $200
per month
Intermediate Environment
$250 - $600
per month
Advanced Environment
$600-$2500
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon Web ServicesIBM Power Virtual Server
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeOptional
Additional DetailsAWS allows a “save when you commit” option that offers lower prices when you sign up for a 1- or 3- year term that includes an AWS service or category of services.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon Web ServicesIBM Power Virtual Server
Features
Amazon Web ServicesIBM Power Virtual Server
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
Comparison of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Amazon Web Services
8.2
Ratings
2% above category average
IBM Power Virtual Server
8.5
Ratings
6% above category average
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime9.30 Ratings8.70 Ratings
Dynamic scaling9.00 Ratings8.30 Ratings
Elastic load balancing9.70 Ratings8.70 Ratings
Pre-configured templates7.30 Ratings8.50 Ratings
Monitoring tools7.00 Ratings8.30 Ratings
Pre-defined machine images6.30 Ratings8.40 Ratings
Operating system support8.00 Ratings8.50 Ratings
Security controls8.30 Ratings8.80 Ratings
Automation8.70 Ratings8.30 Ratings
User Ratings
Amazon Web ServicesIBM Power Virtual Server
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.4
(0 ratings)
9.9
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.3
(0 ratings)
7.2
(0 ratings)
Availability
9.0
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.2
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Online Training
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
10.0
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon Web ServicesIBM Power Virtual Server
Likelihood to Recommend
We are using RDS for the database services. With RDS, we don't have to manage much, as most of the DBA tasks are automated. For development purposes, we are using Kubernetes pods, which makes it easy to deploy applications and scale up as needed. AWS integration with in-house applications is seamless, making it easy to keep a data-sensitive application on-premises while still utilizing AWS services.
Read full review
Due to its reliability, it is well-suited for mission-critical applications. It is also well suited for running multiple applications on a single server and fully utilizing the server's full capacity. However, it is not well suited for servers that require dedicated IO resources.
Read full review
Pros
  • Starting an instance and accessing it for testing purpose, demo or production deployment its always easy.
  • All the things which are available over AWS are pretty well managed and easy to use.
  • You might find everything you required for an product and other development over AWS.
  • Its suitable for both either an enterprise or an startup
  • Various resources and documentation are available in case you struck somewhere.
Read full review
  • It is good in managing our documents in a precise manner.
  • It is a comprehensive tool and supports other languages like JAVA and Python and it is useful for us.
  • It is quite a valuable tool available at a reasonable price in the market and it is a scalable tool.
Read full review
Cons
  • The AWS Management Console can be overwhelming. so a better dashboard and organizing it would improve usability.
  • The pricing models are complex. We need a more clear price calculators and cost management tools to manage our expenses better.
  • Enhancements in cross service compatibility and easier third party integrations could streamline workflow.
  • Simplifying model training in SageMaker and improving IAM for granular access control would make AWS more user friendly
Read full review
  • The software appears to be geared for a no-programming approach, which implies that making changes is more difficult.
  • The user base is small making it monotonous and difficult to come up with new methods.
  • The number of rankings is not as large as competitors.
  • The admin end is poorly designed, as they are unable to receive and respond to client feedback.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
I would gladly rely on AWS for any large-scale application deployment. For prototyping and small-scale applications, a more heavily managed environment on top of the 'bare metal' virtual infrastructure, such as Heroku or Elastic Bean Stalk, is probably a more productive approach in most cases
Read full review
At the moment we are 100% satisfied with the performance and our support team is well used to the process involved. So unless we have some major issues in adopting, we are sure to be with IBM itself.
Read full review
Usability
Amazon Web Services is a great tool when it comes to middle size organizations like us. It provides multiple tools and functionalities in low costs. The best feature we have to pay as we go. No financial burden on company for the unused instances. It also comes with greater level of security such as two level authorization such as multi factor authorization.
Read full review
I would rate IBM Power Virtual Server’s overall usability as an 8 out of 10. The platform offers a solid interface and intuitive dashboard, making it relatively easy for users with cloud experience to navigate. Its scalability and flexibility are strong points. However, the learning curve for new users can be steep, especially when dealing with complex integrations or configurations. While documentation and support are extensive, some users may find the setup process challenging. Overall, it’s highly functional but could be streamlined further for beginners.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.
Read full review
Very easy to use.
Read full review
Performance
AWS does not provide the raw performance that you can get by building your own custom infrastructure. However, it is often the case that the benefits of specialized, high-performance hardware do not necessarily outweigh the significant extra cost and risk. Performance as perceived by the user is very different from raw throughput.
Read full review
Easy to use.
Read full review
Support Rating
The customer support of Amazon Web Services are quick in their responses. I appreciate its entire team, which works amazingly, and provides professional support. AWS is a great tool, indeed, to provide customers a suitable way to
immediately search for their compatible software's and also to guide them in a
good direction. Moreover, this product is a good suggestion for every type of
company because of its affordability and ease of use.
Read full review
As with most IBM products the ongoing support for IBM Power Virtual Server is solid and consistent. IBM provides a clear roadmap for receiving support of their products. Both voice and online response is offered. It is obvious that IBM has the internal systems and culture to maintain support functions. This starts from the initial support call to the problem analysis and continues through the problem resolution. Documentation and communication are consistent within this process.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.
Read full review
It is economic.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
In my personal experience, AWS is superior to both GCP and Azure in the majority of usable applications. GCP suffers from the near total misunderstanding of how support system is even supposed to work, and while _some_ services are pretty nifty and well-polished, some are mindbogglingly designed black boxes with self-conflicting documentation. Some of it comes from having legacy systems, sure, but AWS somehow manages, even having a rather big lead start. Azure, from my limited experience, is limited to people somehow coerced into its usage by external constraints. That being said, IF you can design and implement something there, it will probably run fine.
Read full review
There were different factors which were involved in terms of evaluating IBM as a preferred choice over other offering because of performance and reliability in terms of high performance computing and overall enterprise great feature in terms of critical application which outperforms or maybe beat any time other offerings like AWS system manager data availability is one more in terms of disaster recovery solution and high availability feature the kind of offering IBM provide was way more than in terms of other fujitsu server.
Read full review
Scalability
No answers on this topic
I would rate IBM Cognos Analytics’ scalability as a 9 out of 10. The platform is highly capable of handling large volumes of data and supporting thousands of users with ease. Its architecture is designed for high performance, though it may require fine-tuning for extremely complex data environments to maintain optimal performance.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Provisioning resources like large database instances is really quick. We can easily scale our instances up or down as per need.
  • Storing files in S3 instead of onprem NAS drives is much more economical, especially for the files stored in glacier deep archive for compliance purposes.
  • Backup snapshots of EBS volumes and RDS instances may increase the cost of cloud if not cleaned up properly.
Read full review
  • We have had a return on investment of 30%.
  • There have also been 80% fewer application crashes due to a lack of resources that previously ran on the X86 platform.
  • Administration management has been simplified and staff can dedicate themselves to the development of applications, instead of providing support to users when the applications do not respond efficiently, this made staff 45% more productive.
Read full review
ScreenShots