employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Amazon Web Services

Part of Amazon

Is this your company?

Very organized structure and dynamic teams - System Development Engineer II Amazon Web Services Employee Review

5.0
14 Dec 2023
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Frequent team activities, flexible working hours. Good management weekly feedback and yearly team feedback. Company encourages employee to steer their own career development plan, offering horizontal and vertical options.

Cons

Each team has a lot of freedom in the way it organizes, while this may be good in general, it turns out I had two opposite experiences in the two teams I was. In the first team I felt valued, was pressed sometimes but supported we were 8 people when most and worked in sync with sibling teams in other parts of the world and with other closely related teams. In my second team we were 16 people under one manager but were in fact two different teams in charge of different products. But when you were oncall you were for all the products, even those you don't know. Also the development environment was unmaintained, making a pain to develop anything since you had to always deploy to a test environment to see any result. I only felt supported in this team when a tenured SDEIII joined the team, but he was overloaded, so he couldn't help too much.

Explore other reviews about Amazon Web Services

5.0
8 June 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Great team when you have a manager and full team that works well and collaborates well. Stock is great. And you know when youre doing well, the pay increase is roughly the same as everyone else.

Cons

Low perks compared to other FAANG companies and most teams have high turn over

4.0
12 May 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Operated in systems that had real scale, operational constraints, and production consequences.

Cons

Working at Amazon Web Services gave me strong exposure to distributed systems, operational ownership, and production-scale infrastructure, but there were definitely tradeoffs as well. One downside was that, like many large organizations, ownership could become fragmented. You often own a subsystem or workflow rather than an entire product end-to-end, which can limit exposure to broader architectural decision-making unless you deliberately seek it out. There was also significant process overhead. Design reviews, operational processes, dependency coordination, and organizational alignment were valuable for learning rigor, but they can slow iteration compared to smaller engineering teams. Another challenge is that large internal ecosystems can abstract away infrastructure complexity. AWS has extensive internal tooling, deployment systems, and operational platforms, which are powerful, but some of that experience does not transfer directly outside the company. I also found that operational work could dominate engineering time at points. Handling production issues, retries, integration failures, and on-call responsibilities teaches reliability engineering well, but it can reduce the amount of time spent on deeper technical exploration or greenfield development. Finally, there is the perception aspect. AWS is a strong name, but experienced interviewers know there is wide variance between teams and roles. The company name opens doors, but ultimately you still need to demonstrate technical depth, ownership, and strong engineering judgment independently of the brand.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All