employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Amazon Web Services

Part of Amazon

Is this your company?

Toxic to Women who aren't in Marketing or HR - Sales Amazon Web Services Employee Review

2.0
Apr 20, 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Good benefits, good pay (though the expectation is you work 18 hours a day), some teams have good managers and "walk the talk", great technology, stock's on the rise.

Cons

macho culture, women in non-traditional roles are constantly undermined and gaslighted and no one stands up for them even when it happens in group situations, asking for help to stop harassment results in retaliation: if there are witnesses, HR will refuse to speak to them, managers play favourites and manipulate sales data to skew perception of performance, culture is unhealthily US-centric, it's not uncommon for there to be 50+ person non-technical teams with few or no women, lots of sales teams have one "token" woman hired in at a junior-level to the men expected to develop leads for them, illegal practices like "secret probation" are common, "anonymous" daily surveys are not anonymous, most managers now are white males hired in from companies where the culture is completely the opposite of what AWS aspires to have, women in top leadership have recently been hired but from outside the company rather than promoted from inside and we worry they have little agency or visibility to change things for the women below them and focus instead on "getting little girls interested in STEM "

Explore other reviews about Amazon Web Services

5.0
May 27, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Great job. I’ve learned so much it is just hard with 5 day rto

Cons

The 5 day RTO mandate

4.0
May 12, 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