Amazon CloudWatch is a native AWS monitoring tool for AWS programs. It provides data collection and resource monitoring capabilities.
$0
per canary run
AWS Lambda
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
AWS Lambda is a serverless computing platform that lets users run code without provisioning or managing servers. With Lambda, users can run code for virtually any type of app or backend service—all with zero administration. It takes of requirements to run and scale code with high availability.
$NaN
Per 1 ms
Pricing
Amazon CloudWatch
AWS Lambda
Editions & Modules
Canaries
$0.0012
per canary run
Logs - Analyze (Logs Insights queries)
$0.005
per GB of data scanned
Over 1,000,000 Metrics
$0.02
per month
Contributor Insights - Matched Log Events
$0.02
per month per one million log events that match the rule
Logs - Store (Archival)
$0.03
per GB
Next 750,000 Metrics
$0.05
per month
Next 240,000 Metrics
$0.10
per month
Alarm - Standard Resolution (60 Sec)
$0.10
per month per alarm metric
First 10,000 Metrics
$0.30
per month
Alarm - High Resolution (10 Sec)
$0.30
per month per alarm metric
Alarm - Composite
$0.50
per month per alarm
Logs - Collect (Data Ingestion)
$0.50
per GB
Contributor Insights
$0.50
per month per rule
Events - Custom
$1.00
per million events
Events - Cross-account
$1.00
per million events
CloudWatch RUM
$1
per 100k events
Dashboard
$3.00
per month per dashboard
CloudWatch Evidently - Events
$5
per 1 million events
CloudWatch Evidently - Analysis Units
$7.50
per 1 million analysis units
128 MB
$0.0000000021
Per 1 ms
1024 MB
$0.0000000167
Per 1 ms
10240 MB
$0.0000001667
Per 1 ms
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon CloudWatch
AWS Lambda
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
With Amazon CloudWatch, there is no up-front commitment or minimum fee; you simply pay for what you use. You will be charged at the end of the month for your usage.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon CloudWatch
AWS Lambda
Considered Both Products
Amazon CloudWatch
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Amazon CloudWatch
We use Cloudwatch for simpler monitoring, but these metrics and logs often feed into bigger ecosystems across our organization. The metrics and logs in Cloudwatch allow our developers quick and easy access to the data they need whilst easily integrating the same data into more …
Grafana is definitely a lot better and flexible in comparison with Amazon CloudWatch for visualisation, as it offers much more options and is versatile. VictoriaMetrics and Prometheus are time-series databases which can do almost everything cloudwatch can do in a better and …
In comparison to its competitors, Amazon CloudWatch is efficient, reliable, and has a fast response time, and it maximizes an application's life while also providing the best load balance and storage. The services that Amazon CloudWatch provides are far better and cheaper for …
We have also tested with SolarWinds NPM, and Zoho Monitors. They seemed to work fine and setup was not as involved as Amazon services, JSON, etc. However, the issue of upgrades made the other solutions incur more downtime overall for maintenance and software upgrades via the …
I think there is no alternative of [Amazon] CloudWatch service. However it provides lot of glue points which you can use to show different metrics, trigger events and update your dashboards.
I believe that CloudWatch is a better solution to use with AWS services and resources in terms of cost and ease of integration with AWS infrastructure services. But keep in mind that Elasticsearch is better at aggregating application-level metrics. We chose CloudWatch because of …
We found that CloudWatch is the best solution to use with AWS services in terms of cost and ease of integration with AWS infrastructure services. While Elasticsearch is better at aggregating application-level metrics, CloudWatch wins out in its capabilities to tightly integrate …
CloudWatch is the minimum viable product that is used as your baseline. Once you graduate beyond the basic needs, there is a wide range of tools from other AWS partners that go well above and beyond. However the cost of those tools is typically considerably more.
We thought about using Logstash for capturing our data. But we encountered several configuration issues, so as I mentioned before, if you're using AWS, the best way to do this is using the service they offer, as you don't encounter configuration problems. This is why I consider …
I think Amazon has put more efforts to develop AWS CloudWatch features to monitor each kind of AWS service you can use instead of Dynatrace One Agent that just can monitor some variables of Computing services and FaaS, unless Dynatrace One Agent integration with AWS CloudWatch …
Out of the box monitoring which compliments workloads implemented from infrastructure as code so we have standardized metrics across all our monitoring for our AWS workloads. Also incredibly easy to implement via the console which can be done in minutes oppose to hours of …
We choose Amazon CloudWatch because, first, we use AWS and we need a monitoring tool. That is why we considered CloudWatch as soon as we started deploying AWS services to our company. Second, CloudWatch is a great, handy tool to monitor our services. Its strength is obvious …
Currently, we only tried and used Cloud Watch, but for AWS it is perfect. Since this is an Amazon product monitoring Amazon services, integration is great. If we decide in the future to move away from AWS, we would reconsider changing alarm monitoring. AWS can be costly …
Amazon CloudWatch is fully integrated into your existing AWS account, and provides easy hooks into several different services to make a cohesive infrastructure. Unfortunately, using other services will not allow you to get into the weeds to do everything Amazon CloudWatch can …
CloudWatch is incredibly cheap compared to new relic and much more intuitive and easy to use than Nagios. It requires no setup, expertise, or otherwise extensive knowledge to use.
We used to use Miscosoft Azure, however when we came across Amazon CloudWatch, and all the features it can provide, it seemd no brainer to switch. We transitioned from Azure to CloudWatch within 2 years of using Azure, And may not go back. Hopefully Amazon will keep adding more …
Amazon CloudWatch is great in terms of the CloudWatch Logs feature, it integrates easily with other AWS services (CloudFormation, S3, Lambda, etc.) and is reasonably low cost, so it was a no-brainer for that area. For alerting, CloudWatch didn't offer much in the way of …
I feel that CloudWatch will always remain the backbone of log analytics, events, and alarms. However, we can use other products in conjunction with it for better log analytics and monitoring. In my organization, we also ingest logs from CloudWatch to Splunk and ELK. This way we …
It's fine, it works as the others would have, except EC2. We are migrating back to EC2 for dedicated compute because we have scaled to a point where we have consistent traffic. The tradeoff of maintaining infrastructure in-house outweighs the benefits of moving quickly through …
We use AWS as our primary cloud provider due to the overall availability of services, AWS Lambda is just one of the services we use with AWS which allows a more seamless integration for our microservices. AWS Lambda gives us much more flexibility and can be invoked by more …
AWS Lambda is much easier to use than the near alternatives. It is so straightforward and lightweight it is my primary service for handling small transactions or triggers. The other services require more setup time and are more complex to use. AWS Lambda takes your code snippet …
AWS is great product and a close match our expectations. It is close to Azure in function but more feature rich with API and support documents. From my experience, it is cheaper compared with our competitors and provides better interface. Overall our dev engineers prefer AWS …
I've worked previously with Azure Functions which seems to be the direct competitor to AWS Lambda and while Azure Functions worked just fine there seemed to be more configuration and "magic" behind the scenes to it compared to AWS Lambda which is very straight forward. I …
When we use Lambda, we do not need to worry about the infrastructure and costs. AWS can handle it all on its own. For an optimum use case, one can always use AWS Lambda along with API Gateway and Route 53 for the best use case. Cloudwatch can help you identify any issues and …
We also use Google Cloud Functions because we use GCP in addition to AWS. AWS Lambda is comparable to Google Cloud Functions in its functionality. The main advantage of going with one or the other has to do with what resources it will interact with--we use AWS Lambda to …
I have used Azure Functions and Google Cloud Functions. In comparison, AWS Lambda is a bit more difficult to configure out of the gate. But in most cases once the function is in place and running the operation becomes completely hands-off. While I've used Azure Functions and …
Each service has its purpose. With EC2 you can provision servers for customers and internal projects. With EBs you can optimize what you need in performance with what you can afford. With AWS Lambda you can integrate several of these tools to work together or acomplish …
I've used Google Cloud Functions to create apps for Google Home devices. My students find this more difficult to use than AWS Lambda, especially when it comes to setting permissions.
We really did not evaluate them against other products except a little Google research, we are a centralized AWS customer so it was a smooth and simple (even if blind) decision for us.
Jenkins is a solution for CD/CI pipelines. We can leverage this tool to run code automatically. Long-lived applications and jobs can also be run through it.
AWS is a much more mature platform than Microsoft Azure but is a lot more rigid in the portability perspective. If you are in it for the long run then Lambda is great and the best choice.
Since our company heavily relies on AWS already, my team did not consider any other serverless platforms when building our applications. Lambda was chosen by "default", but it's also such a popular platform that we felt we couldn't go wrong.
These are all AWS sister products, so I wouldn't say they are competitors but tools in the same box. They all work quite well together and I would say combined they are greater than the sum of their parts. Cloudformation (and SAM) templates make tying them together pretty …
AWS Lambda is good for short running functions, and ideally in response to events within AWS. Google App Engine is a more robust environment which can have complex code running for long periods of time, and across more than one instance of hardware. Google App Engine allows for …
But other similar things I've used are Azure Functions and GCP Google Cloud Functions. Like all services like this, the support is pretty much the same. AWS Lambda supports enough popular languages, and behaves pretty much the same as all of these similar services. It does it's …
We considered using application deploy in EC2 with Auto Scale but ended up with AWS Lambda as it helps us to simplify our development and deployment process. It allows us to quickly create instances in a short time for processing data when the source application uploads data …
While AWS Lambda doesn't have the UI or the predefined functions that these other services provide, what was apparent to us is the cost saving and flexibility we have with AWS Lambda once we have it set up.
If you use any AWS services, CloudWatch is the natural choice to monitor & troubleshoot your workload. Thankfully, for most AWS services, CloudWatch is either built-in or very easy to set up. However, being proficient in browsing & tracking the log events would take some training & practice. Having some experienced people on the team would help immensely, especially in spreading the skill to the rest of the team.
Scenarios where AWS Lambda is well suited: 1. When we need to run a periodic task few times in a day or every hour, we may deploy it on AWS Lambda so it would not increase load on our server which is handling client requests and at the same time we don't have to pay for AWS Lambda when it is not running. So, overall we only pay for few function invocations. 2. When some compute intensive processing is to be done but the number of requests per unit of time fluctuates. For example, we had deployed an AWS Lambda for processing images into different sizes and storing them on AWS S3 once user uploads them. Now, this is something that may happen few times every hour on a particular day or may not happen even once on other days. To handle this kind of tasks AWS Lambda is a better choice as we don't have to pay for the idle time of the server and also we don't have to worry about scaling when the load is high. Scenarios where AWS Lambda is not appropriate to use: 1. When we expect a large request volume continuously on the server. 2. When we don't want latency even in case of concurrent requests.
It provides lot many out of the box dashboard to observe the health and usage of your cloud deployments. Few examples are CPU usage, Disk read/write, Network in/out etc.
It is possible to stream CloudWatch log data to Amazon Elasticsearch to process them almost real time.
If you have setup your code pipeline and wants to see the status, CloudWatch really helps. It can trigger lambda function when certain cloudWatch event happens and lambda can store the data to S3 or Athena which Quicksight can represent.
AWS Lambda is a welcoming platform, supporting several languages, including Java, Go, PowerShell, Node.js, C#, Python, and Ruby. And if you need to deploy a Lambda function in another language, AWS offers a Runtime API for integration.
We really appreciate how AWS Lambda is always-on for our functions, with only a brief "cold-start" waiting period the first time a function is called after being dormant.
In addition to only generating costs when it's actually being used, AWS Lambda really puts the "serverless" in serverless architecture, offering turnkey scaleability and high availability for our code with zero effort on our part.
Memory metrics on EC2 are not available on CloudWatch. Depending on workloads if we need visibility on memory metrics we use Solarwinds Orion with the agent installed. For scalable workloads, this involves customization of images being used.
Visualization out of the box. But this can easily be addressed with other solutions such as Grafana.
By design, this is only used for AWS workloads so depending on your environment cannot be used as an all in one solution for your monitoring.
The UI and Developer experience is not so great. IF you use an abstraction like Serverless Application Model (SAM), things get pretty easy, but it's still AWS UI/DX you're working with after that (which is to say, not their strength).
Documentation is always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's just easier to google your specific problem and see how others have solved it. This can be much faster than trying to find an example that may or may not be there in the documentation (which oftentimes has multiple versions and revisions).
Although the tool itself is easy to integrate and is readily available for use, it has its limitations. The key limitations of cloudwatch are with respect to cost incurred on log retention and log querying. While for key use cases this is sufficient, for more advanced use cases, Amazon CloudWatch doesn't work out. Also, obviously it is tightly coupled with AWS, which makes you look away if you need a single tool for all monitoring
It is very easy to get started with AWS Lambda and create your first function. The user interface makes it easy to add AWS services to be inputs or outputs to the function, meaning it can be configured in many different ways for different needs. This makes it ideal for various scenarios in AWS.
Support is effective, and we were able to get any problems that we couldn't get solved through community discussion forums solved for us by the AWS support team. For example, we were assisted in one instance where we were not sure about the best metrics to use in order to optimize an auto-scaling group on EC2. The support team was able to look at our metrics and give a useful recommendation on which metrics to use.
As this is a product where a great part of errors can be at the source code level, AWS support team doesn't dive that further. I mean they don't evaluate problems more complex related to your code, [which] is totally understandable, but this make[s] debug process more tough and painful.
We use Cloudwatch for simpler monitoring, but these metrics and logs often feed into bigger ecosystems across our organization. The metrics and logs in Cloudwatch allow our developers quick and easy access to the data they need whilst easily integrating the same data into more prominent platforms for wider analysis, including Service desk support, SecOps, and ITOps monitoring within the organization.
It's fine, it works as the others would have, except EC2. We are migrating back to EC2 for dedicated compute because we have scaled to a point where we have consistent traffic. The tradeoff of maintaining infrastructure in-house outweighs the benefits of moving quickly through our roadmap.
We have simplified log fiie ingestion using Lambda functions. The return has been less time worrying about getting logs from source to ingestion; one the process is in place the team is nearly 100% hands off.
We have begun taking a more API focused approach by using API Gateway as the interface to business processes and Lambda as the back end compute. Moving away from server based back ends places us on a path to reducing overall spend in compute costs.
Lambda functions allow us to easily interface with third party services through APIs. This simplifies access management since the function can be granted permissions and access to the function can be gated with API keys and other authentication methods.