AWS Elastic Beanstalk is the platform-as-a-service offering provided by Amazon and designed to leverage AWS services such as Amazon Elastic Cloud Compute (Amazon EC2), Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3).
$0
Users pay for AWS resources (e.g. EC2, S3 buckets, etc.) used to store and run the application.
AWS Lambda
Score 8.3 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
SSIS
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft's SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) is a data integration solution.
N/A
Pricing
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Lambda
SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS)
Editions & Modules
No Charge
$0
Users pay for AWS resources (e.g. EC2, S3 buckets, etc.) used to store and run the application.
128 MB
$0.0000000021
Per 1 ms
1024 MB
$0.0000000167
Per 1 ms
10240 MB
$0.0000001667
Per 1 ms
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Lambda
SSIS
Free Trial
No
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Lambda
SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS)
Considered Multiple Products
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose AWS Elastic Beanstalk
In some of the other companies that I've worked in, I've had the opportunity to work with the above softwares where the structure and architecture of the services was much complicated but the above softwares were able to handle it with more ease and efficiency. The complex …
There are many services like AWS Elastic beanstalk, but there are none with the maturity in the platform or the cost-effectiveness of AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Also, AWS Elastic Beanstalk is the oldest among them, so there are more people with AWS experience than the other …
I have used App Engine on Google Cloud Platform and App Service on Microsoft Azure. Both offer similar capabilities to AWS Elastic Beanstalk. App Engine has the nice ability to scale to 0 instances when the application has not been in use for some time. This allows for …
As it supports end to end flow of application deployment and not a part of any individual process like other AWS products, AWS Elastic Beanstalk can be a game changer in cloud industry.
The AWS platform provides a great deal of configurability that is abstracted and provided very well through AWS Elastic Beanstalk. This is the main reason for choosing Elastic Beanstalk over competing services. Another reason for selecting AWS Beanstalk was vendor …
I selected AWS Elastic Beanstalk mainly because we have been using AWS services for our company. Using AWS Elastic Beanstalk is relatively easier than starting to use a completely new cloud platform. But we are also reviewing Google App Engine, and found out Elastic Beanstalk …
AWS Elastic Beanstalk is equivalent to Google App Engine in terms of product. I selected AWS Elastic Beanstalk because it was within the stack we were using, and it made sense for us given the other architecture.
Public & Private Cloud Senior Business Technology Engineer
Chose AWS Elastic Beanstalk
We now default to Amazon ECS, due to flexibility this gives us with how workloads scale, and more network flexibility as many of our workloads are internal / external facing. We selected Elastic Beanstalk at beginning of our containerization phase, which suited our needs …
Azure currently doesn't have a solution that's similar to this but you can do a lot of the features with several of the components that Microsoft Azure offers. AWS Elastic Beanstalk exists in that niche market where if you have an existing solution, this is a great way to move &…
AWS is much more focused on scalability, but Heroku was much easier to get things up and running as a beginner. For simple hosting, I would stick to something like Heroku or Netlify. That said, Elastic Beanstalk is meant for more performant functions requiring large scaling and …
AWS Elastic Beanstalk is a great option for an organization that's already invested in the AWS ecosystem. The greater the number of complementary features needed by the application (e.g. integrating with Amazon's Elastic Load Balancer, databases, etc), the greater the reward …
We also use Heroku and it is a great platform for smaller projects and light Node.js services, but we have found that in terms of cost, the Elastic Beanstalk option is more affordable for the projects that we undertake. The fact that it sits inside of the greater AWS Cloud …
I enjoyed that Lightsail was so simple to provision and access via the in-browser SSH terminal, but ultimately Elastic Beanstalk is a more robust offering that interfaces seamlessly with more of AWS's other services. Elastic Beanstalk is also better equipped to automate …
I selected these solutions because they are the closest to being able to set up separate server or VM instances. As far as performance and scalability, Heroku does offer an autoscale option, but the base cost to have the autoscale in place, sets Heroku behind EBS. Digital …
Honestly, I haven't tried any other alternative products. As already mentioned, I am already heavily invested in AWS, so EBS was a natural choice for me. In other reviews, I have found, AWS is better than its competitors. There are more flavors, and options in AWS, better …
Heroku is another similar product which we had tried out to deploy one of the NodeJs project and it has lot of developer friendly features as well. Though Heroku is more expensive than Beanstalk is what I found. Heroku also has some restrictions which can affect the …
The other main competitor that I have used would probably be Heroku. While Heroku is incredibly simple and easy to get a sample web app online, its dashboard and product connectivity didn't feel quite as seamless as AWS Elastic Beanstalk. AWS Elastic Beanstalk has a higher up …
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.
Both are very similar. Azure is cloud based. It is easier for the organization who uses cloud based application. The SQL Server Integration Services is cost effective. Azure was more on the expensive side for our organization. Azure was a little complex, it needed special …
I think SQL Server Integration Services is better suited for on-premises data movement and ADF is more suited for the cloud. Though ADF has more connectors, SQL Server Integration Services is more robust and has better functionality just because it has been around much longer
Fivetran, Stitch, and Etleap are all 1000x more modern than SSIS and 100x less aggravating. While those tools are mainly used to sync data rather than transform it, the ELT model works much better than the ETL model in most situations.
We just selected SSIS because we use SQL Server Management System (SSMS) to manage our database. As SSIS is a component of the Microsoft SQL Server there are no problems with integration and everything works perfectly. In addition, we don't have to learn how to use another …
Low-cost relative to other products - in fact, zero cost if one is considering the license cost as being for the database engine with Integration Services added on. It has a comparable range of functionality and performance and as such it's a 'no-brainer' to use SSIS over …
SnapLogic and Azure Data Factory are better than SQL Server Integration Services mostly because they are Integration Platform as a Service (IPAAS) services, whereas SQL Server Integration Services is an on-premise. So the basic differences such as, need a VPN to connect to the …
SSIS is similar to Alteryx and Informatica PowerCenter in a way because these are all drag-and-drop ETL tools with similar functionality. Alteryx is a step ahead because it has some advanced ETL functionalities including statistical calculations etc. and a better ability to set …
Alteryx Designer is easier to use for machine learning models. The functionality of drag and drop is the most valuable. It is a very user-friendly tool that can be understood easily. My teams also work with other solutions, such as Integration Services, and these solutions are …
I had nothing to do with the choice or install. I assume it was made because it's easy to integrate with our SQL Server environment and free. I'm not sure of any other enterprise level solution that would solve this problem, but I would likely have approached it with …
SAP Business Objects was a primary concurrent software against the MS SSIS but it has a more steep learning curve and requires additional investment into the SAP-related software infrastructure. With SSIS one can start easily with simple data extraction / DTL tools of Express …
I personally prefer SSIS. There are items that each do better than the others, but the ease of use of SSIS, along with its extensibility to 3rd party, ability to write any code required in the tool, and uses the same IDE for the MS BI suite (more of an issue if you're not a …
I used the Pentaho Data Integration (PDI) ETL tool. The PDI ETL tool does not have a public user collection like the SQL Server Integration Services(SSIS) ETL tool. Therefore, you may not be able to find instant solutions for your problems. But it has advantages over the SSIS …
SQL Server is already in our wheelhouse so it only made sense to utilize the tools we already had available to us--SSIS, SSAS, & SSRS. Other non-technical users seem to be more comfortable using alternatives to SSIS. However, these alternatives are not as good as SSIS at …
These are all great products and, honestly, can move data faster. They include more enterprise features and have some great qualities about each. However, they all cost a lot depending on the implementation you need. With SQL Server Integration Services, you do not have any …
When looking to evaluate different options, we looked first to the experience and software we had in-house that would accomplish the job. When assessing alternatives outside we were looking for the tool that would offer the most flexibility.
It’s basically a free tool and it has more features than anyone would ever need. If you look online for answers for SISS packages you will find a world of information that can cover almost any situation for your business. This tool can be used in any business and it provides …
SSIS is a very basic, developer-oriented ETL tool and while it lacks many of the nice UX features of its competitors it is a powerful tool that comes as a part of SQL Server and, in the hands of experienced developers with domain knowledge, can meet most organizations' ETL …
SSIS and Denodo differ in their approaches to ETL and Data integrations. SSIS is more affordable from a cost and licensing perspective (if you have Microsoft licensing), but Denodo is no slouch. If you go with Denodo, you are not creating data, there are pros and cons to …
SQL Server Integration Services does a good job for our SQL Server environments and was selected for that reason. For a SQL Server-only implementations, I would recommend SQL Server Integration Services. When we compared SSIS to other ETL providers against SQL Server, SSIS was …
AWS Elastic Beanstalk is well suited for [the] rapid development of applications that use standard compute platforms based on popular programming languages. So getting a Go, Python, Ruby, or Node.js app going in AWS Elastic Beanstalk will be easy. For non-standard applications, containers provide another option for using AWS Elastic Beanstalk. In either case, AWS Elastic Beanstalk is well suited for applications that are [self-contained]. AWS Elastic Beanstalk is also good for development or test environments that need a built-in deployment method. AWS Elastic Beanstalk is less appropriate for complex applications that rely on multiple AWS services. While deploying and running the base code might be easy to get going, it may be difficult to apply permissions and integrations with the other services.
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.
Ideal for daily standard ETL use cases whether the data is sourced from / transferred to the native connectors (like SQL Server) or FTP. Best if the company uses MS suite of tools. There are better options in the market for chaining tasks where you want a custom flow of executions depending on the outcome of each process or if you want advanced functionality like API connections, etc.
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.
How to more easily integrate with other other AWS services. There are plenty out there, but it's not quite as seamless as I feel like it should be to mix and match products.
Make backing up easier when scaling the server. It took quite a bit of time to make sure we had everything set up in case something went wrong.
When you are first starting to use AWS, the dashboard can be very intimidating. There are countless products all with names that aren't very indicative of what they actually do.
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).
As our technology grows, it makes more sense to individually provision each server rather than have it done via beanstalk. There are several reasons to do so, which I cannot explain without further diving into the architecture itself, but I can tell you this. With automation, you also loose the flexibility to morph the system for your specific needs. So if you expect that in future you need more customization to your deployment process, then there is a good chance that you might try to do things individually rather than use an automation like beanstalk.
SSIS is responsible for running core business processed managing core business data. It can be managed, improved and expanded using minimal internal resources. It is also able to support all of our current data infrastructure. Replacing SSIS would be time consuming and costly with no apparent ROI.
The overall usability is good enough, as far as the scaling, interactive UI and logging system is concerned, could do a lot better when it comes to the efficiency, in case of complicated node logics and complicated node architectures. It can have better software compatibility and can try to support collaboration with more softwares
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.
It is easy to learn, works great on many features, but needs improvement on ETL troubleshooting and performance monitoring functionality. Great tool on Microsoft stack. it is great with simple, structured datasets. Once logic gets fancy like nested conditionals complex joins, reusable transformations, versioned logic …SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) packages become hard to read and harder to maintain. Source control is painful. Errors can be cryptic Logging takes effort to set up well Debugging in production is limited.
Raw performance is great. At times, depending on the machine you are using for development, the IDE can have issues. Deploying projects is very easy and the tool set they give you to monitor jobs out of the box is decent. If you do very much with it you will have to write into your projects performance tracking though.
As I described earlier it has been really cost effective and really easy for fellow developers who don't want to waste weeks and weeks into learning and manually deploying stuff which basically takes month to create and go live with the Minimal viable product (MVP). With AWS Beanstalk within a week a developer can go live with the Minimal viable product easily.
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.
The support, when necessary, is excellent. But beyond that, it is very rarely necessary because the user community is so large, vibrant and knowledgable, a simple Google query or forum question can answer almost everything you want to know. You can also get prewritten script tasks with a variety of functionality that saves a lot of time.
- Do as many experiments as you can before you commit on using beanstalk or other AWS features. - Keep future state in mind. Think through what comes next, and if that is technically possible to do so. - Always factor in cost in terms of scaling. - We learned a valuable lesson when we wanted to go multi-region, because then we realized many things needs to change in code. So if you plan on using this a lot, factor multiple regions.
The implementation may be different in each case, it is important to properly analyze all the existing infrastructure to understand the kind of work needed, the type of software used and the compatibility between these, the features that you want to exploit, to understand what is possible and which ones require integration with third-party tools
There are many services like AWS Elastic beanstalk, but there are none with the maturity in the platform or the cost-effectiveness of AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Also, AWS Elastic Beanstalk is the oldest among them, so there are more people with AWS experience than the other platforms. The only thing is their documentation and UX are a bit old, which doesn't stop it from performing greatly, but yes, if you are looking for better UX, then you can check out other options.
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.
Both are very similar. Azure is cloud based. It is easier for the organization who uses cloud based application. The SQL Server Integration Services is cost effective. Azure was more on the expensive side for our organization. Azure was a little complex, it needed special training to use it. Azure was not accurate with complex data.
Elastic Beanstalk removes countless hours from development team responsibility, freeing up those resources to instead focus on building the products that our customers want to use.
As a business that is already embedded into using EC2 instances, it's essentially free to leverage the work that AWS performs on configuring the Elastic Beanstalk stacks.
With Elastic Beanstalk, while there is still a responsibility to ensure that applications can work with updated underlying dependencies, it's much easier when AWS handled the heavy lifting of updating the stacks.
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.
Without this, we would have to manually update a spreadsheet of our SQL Server inventory
We would also have poor alerting; if an instance was down we wouldn't know until it was reported by a user
We only have one other person who uses SQL Server Integration Services , he's the expert. It would fall to me without him and I would not enjoy being responsible for it.