We use it in production on some pretty heavy platforms, and we&#x27;re considering moving more platforms onto it.<p>My feedback:<p>* Read&#x2F;write performance is as good or better than you will get on any other MySQL platform, and much better in some cases. We didn&#x27;t really choose Aurora explicitly for it&#x27;s performance gains so YMMV.<p>* Replicas had some serious lag issues on earlier versions of Aurora, but they&#x27;ve completely disappeared for us after the 1.6 patch (released in March 2016).<p>* Peace of mind with replicas is worth a lot. They shouldn&#x27;t ever fall out of sync with the writer node, they lag less than traditional async MySQL replication (as of the 1.6 patch), &amp; failover to them is pretty fast&#x2F;easy.<p>* We had mild stability issues for a while, but those have also largely gone with the 1.6 patch.<p>* Pitfall: if you&#x27;re heavy on big temp-tables for on replica nodes, then you might not get great performance on creation &amp; reads from those temp-tables.<p>* Protip: if you&#x27;re in a Java-based stack, use the MariaDB JDBC driver (in Aurora mode). This eases farming out queries to replicas, and makes failover a lot easier&#x2F;quicker.<p>I&#x27;d also say that Aurora isn&#x27;t a fix for a bad data model and&#x2F;or lack of indexes. We&#x27;ve noticed that CPU% is pretty comparible to any other flavor of MySQL for heavy&#x2F;complex query workloads.<p>I recently spoke about Aurora at an AWS Summit. Video here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=qvMKKDbzaxo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=qvMKKDbzaxo</a>