DO's network performance gets... iffy under serious load. Or sometimes just has consistently-terrible throughput and/or latency to certain addresses, for unclear reasons (I have a suspicion their peering agreements and interconnects are simply awful for a lot of routes—probably as a cost-saving measure). You may not notice any of this on hobbyist or small-time commercial projects, but it's a real problem.

So that's one difference. AWS is expensive, and its performance tiers for stuff like networking can be frustratingly opaque, but when you pay enough, you do get more-or-less what you paid for. And fighting DO's networking can get expensive in a hurry, in lost business or technician hours.

As for Amplify vs. Ansible, yeah, dunno.

[EDIT] Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've seen hosting of this general sort fall apart at the networking level—I ran into very similar problems with RackSpace over a decade ago, there was simply no way to come anywhere near taxing the hardware we were paying for before the pipe got saturated, like, there was an order-of-magnitude mismatch between the two, requests timing out en masse while the hardware ("what a good bargain this price is!") was practically idle.

[EDIT EDIT] It's probably no coincidence that it's easy to list and understand hardware specs, but difficult to communicate or evaluate real-world Internet-connected network performance without trying it—so it's probably tempting as hell to scrimp on networking while selling based on bang-for-the-buck in hardware allocation.