CARTO for AWS

My main use case for CARTO includes plantation monitoring, EUDR compliance, mapping, and deforestation analysis.

CARTO is really useful, and I appreciate the detailed example shared. The best features CARTO offers include the ability to handle raster and vector data together, which is important for my work because it helps me compare efficiently with other tools I have tried.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization by helping me save time, and I can share more about how much time I save and how my workflow is faster with CARTO, including specific outcomes or metrics. CARTO has also helped my team collaborate better and share data more easily.

I would like to add more about the needed improvements for CARTO, possibly something else that would make my experience even better.

Regarding CARTO's AI capabilities, I trust it, but not at one hundred percent because I do not know all the third parties around the data, and I wish to know more about it.

I have been using CARTO for almost six months.

I find CARTO stable.

I would rate CARTO's scalability as good.

The customer support I have received from CARTO is good; it is not bad.

Before CARTO, I previously used Google Earth Engine, but I switched because Google Earth Engine does not take into account every parameter, and CARTO is more comprehensive.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is a little bit expensive.

I have seen a return on investment with CARTO, as I have saved time, money, and resources, including human resources since using it.

Before choosing CARTO, I did not evaluate other options.

The language is a challenge; Cameroon is a bilingual country, but there are not more than five people who master English in my organization. Most of my colleagues are French speakers, so the interface should be available in both English and French for easy transition and smooth working.

I faced challenges when trying to import some data from my personal computer, but besides that, CARTO integration is smooth with other tools or systems I use.

I would describe the learning curve for new users on my team as moderate.

I have not used CARTO's mobile features or apps.

My advice for others looking into using CARTO is to have a quick review of the basics in GIS mapping. CARTO does provide the basics, but without basic skills, navigating it can be quite challenging, so having some experience with traditional GIS software is valuable.

I found this interview a bit too fast at times; you do not listen. I would rate this interview at a nine point five out of ten.

I work in a government hospital in Baghdad, Iraq. My main use case for CARTO is that I work on all cases, from AVNRT to VT, and I have performed all cases, including atrial fibrillation on CARTO and VT.

The best features of CARTO that I use most during my procedures are pattern matching, voltage mapping, substrate mapping, and anatomical mapping when I take points.

CARTO has impacted my lab overall by allowing for short procedure times. I do not use fluoroscopy, which is very important. It results in short procedure times, no use of fluoroscopy, and successful outcomes in all cases with CARTO.

There are features in CARTO that I do not use very much, such as the Ablation Index, which is very important for AF ablation. Additionally, when I take all ECG references in VT, I think the option is called all ECG reference, which is very important when I have taken it in VT. I think the feature of histogram is very important in re-entry mapping.

I have been using both CARTO and EnSite X for more than five years in daily EP practice, and from real-world experience, CARTO is not just a 3D mapping system.

I value CARTO because it is more than stable, and I can perform all cases, including difficult cases, with CARTO because it is stable and easy to use.

Before I started using CARTO, the system I was using in the lab was fluoroscopy, but we also had the conventional system. CARTO does not have a conventional or EP study system.

When I start a procedure and open CARTO, I connect all catheters in the PIU and start to form the geometry. Before that, I prepare the window of interest for the case. For VT, I will take a QRS template and perform pattern matching.

When I use CARTO during procedures, it is just the doctor and I operating the system. There is no need for anyone else because CARTO will do everything. Fluoroscopy is not needed when you use CARTO.

When my lab was choosing CARTO, CARTO was the only option and we did not consider any other mapping systems.

I hope to have more training, but I think I am performing well currently. I would rate this review as highly positive based on my experience with CARTO.

During my live project, I used CARTO as an interface to access GeoJSON files and other geospatial data while analyzing very different aspects, including population, satellite imagery, and identifying patterns based on geographical data.

My main use case for CARTO is primarily that functionality. Additionally, CARTO helped us with citing existing data about patterns in a specific area. To map it out and visualize it, CARTO was of great help, and linking it with different workforces and different platforms made it even more useful.

According to me, the best features of CARTO are, firstly, the visualization of maps and satellite imageries. Additionally, it has a cloud native architecture, so CARTO eliminates data fragmentation and technical bottlenecks that other GIS systems experience. It has an in-built AI agent, which makes the work very easy because I do not have to work manually as I did previously. CARTO also has an analytics toolbox and workflows, which makes it easy to plot and analyze data.

Regarding how the AI agent helped me in my project, it has an Agent Configuration Assistant which helped me design, set up, and iterate on agents using natural language. I can simply state what I want naturally without having to use a lot of technical terminology because I come from a management background and may not know the technical details. It understands that and supports Claude, so there is very good compatibility.

In the visualization aspect of CARTO, I found an auto styling feature that automatically analyzes map data, identifies trends and relationships, and highlights them by applying the best visual layers. I do not have to think about what to move forward with; it automatically provides recommendations which are very handy.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization and project because I was previously using traditional GIS systems. We had a team of five or six people, with some who knew the technical aspects and some who saw it from a business perspective. The cross-team accessibility that CARTO provided made it much easier for us as analysts to give a decision to a company because I could understand the technical data and translate it for laypeople as well. That made it easier for decision-makers to understand what we were trying to communicate.

If I consider how CARTO can be improved, the AI agent can become better eventually because we are in a changing landscape. CARTO could expand their LLM support; right now, it operates more on Claude as an AI agent. If it could include Azure, which is for Microsoft, or AWS Bedrock, which is for Amazon, it would help us integrate data more easily. I did not find many restrictions or problems beyond that.

If CARTO had better compatibility with Microsoft, it could present data forward better because the connectivity becomes difficult. One major aspect we found as a hindrance was the pricing; it felt too expensive for us. We were students at that time, so it was very expensive, and there are many cheaper alternatives available. The high cost became tedious for us.

I have been using CARTO for a good seven to eight months.

CARTO is stable; however, it buffers a lot with heavy data sets.

CARTO can handle larger projects or data sets, but it does buffer a lot. Compared to offline software, it takes a lot of time, though it can handle it; it is just time-consuming.

I did not have the need to interact with the CARTO customer support team.

Earlier, I used QGIS as software and then had different visualization tools for viewing purposes, such as Kepler. The only reason for my switch was firstly that it was recommended to us and secondly, the cross-platform team accessibility. If I am using CARTO, my peers can use it at the same time, making it better for us in terms of compatibility and synchronization.

We used CARTO as students, and there was a trial period for fourteen days. Once our fourteen days ended, it became very expensive and we lost our workflows in the process because working on any project takes more than fourteen days. The entire setup was very pricey for us being students.

For our project, it was really helpful and a great learning opportunity. From the organization perspective for whom we were doing this project, CARTO saved them a lot of hassle and tons of money because the information we provided based on maybe a twenty to thirty day research using the software would have required at least six to eight months of the same amount of research. Time was saved for them significantly.

There was a trial period for fourteen days. Once our fourteen days ended, it became very expensive and we lost our workflows in the process because working on any project takes more than fourteen days. The entire setup was very pricey for us being students.

Before selecting CARTO, I evaluated QGIS, which overall was one hundred percent free and open source. The only downside is that on QGIS, I had to download it on my laptop or Windows system, which became restrictive. At that point, CARTO being cloud native made it easier for us to synchronize and for a business use case. QGIS is good for learning purposes, but for scaling purposes, I do not think it goes a long way.

I definitely saved a lot of time using CARTO, and it helped me because I do not come from a very technical background, so it provided me ease and the capability to use such software and give recommendations without actually going into the technical details and focusing on the problem the company had.

The advice I would give to others looking into using CARTO is to do a breakeven analysis for themselves on what amount they will be earning using the software before investing in it because of the price question. Secondly, I would suggest that if they are working on teams or any large organization or enterprise-based system, then CARTO is very use specific. I would rate this review an eight out of ten.

CARTO is used for ablations, mapping, and EP studies. In the case of ablations, such as atrial fibrillations, VT ablations, PVC ablations, and SVTs, every case that requires mapping and then intervention utilizes this main component in my current facility.

For example, in an atrial fibrillation procedure, you gain access and need ICE guidance, which CARTO provides. The ICE catheter helps perform a quick map of the right atrium before going transseptal. When that map is complete, all the catheters provided are used, including ablation, the decanav catheter, and ICE. After the transseptal, which is an essential part of the procedure because the left side of the heart must be ablated, the team maps, detects where the arrhythmia is originating from and its rate, and then ablates the pulmonary veins. After those veins are ablated, the procedure is essentially complete.

CARTO offers a very specific and reliable mapping system, which is the advantage it has over other companies. The representatives are almost one hundred percent knowledgeable and helpful. They really assist during the case by detecting arrhythmias and fixing them.

CARTO performs a lot of ablations and fixes many heart conduction systems. This improves the lives of multiple people, which is a very good outcome.

The shape of the catheter currently being used, the FARAPULSE, is lasso-shaped and represents the first generation. The second generation is about to be implemented, and I believe it will be a major change. However, the shape of the current catheter is not really useful for isolating the veins. The ICE catheters are very good, and the mapping system is really excellent.

Other companies currently have a better catheter shape, even though they lack many things that CARTO has. That catheter shape makes a difference in the duration of the procedure.

CARTO has been in use for more than two years.

There are no stability issues.

There are no scalability issues.

CARTO's customer service is very good. Every time we have a problem, they know how to set it up and are always on the phone trying to help, or someone can come to the hospital for assistance.

CARTO has been used since the beginning. I have been using CARTO since September 2022 until now.

The initial setup was not problematic.

The implementation team was very good.

CARTO recently introduced a new type of ablation called PFA, Pulsed Field Ablation. It is very modern and has been used for a while in Europe. Now it is being used in the United States for the last year to year and a half. When this ablation is performed, patients do not return for a redo because it is very reliable. Studies show that people do not have a second ablation after the first one, which is a positive example.

My point of view is to pay attention to the mappers, as we can learn a lot from them. CARTO is a great system, and it is very interesting to see the heart conduction displayed in three dimensions. Learning from the mappers and visiting the CARTO website is beneficial. CARTO offers many courses that can help people understand and learn the system better. I would rate this review a nine overall.