Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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
Azure Container Apps
Score 6.0 out of 10
N/A
Azure Container Apps, part of the Azure suite of products from Microsoft, is a service used to deploy containerized apps without managing complex infrastructure. Users can write code using a preferred programming language or framework, and build microservices with full support for Distributed Application Runtime (Dapr). Scale dynamically based on HTTP traffic or events powered by Kubernetes Event-Driven Autoscaling (KEDA).N/A
IBM Cloud Functions
Score 6.9 out of 10
N/A
IBM Cloud Functions is a PaaS platform based on Apache OpenWhisk. With it, developers write code (“actions”) that respond to external events. Actions are hosted, executed, and scaled on demand based on the number of events coming in. No servers or infrastructure to provision and manage.
$0
per second of execution
Pricing
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Editions & Modules
128 MB
$0.0000000021
Per 1 ms
1024 MB
$0.0000000167
Per 1 ms
10240 MB
$0.0000001667
Per 1 ms
vCPU (seconds)
active usage $0.000024 and idle usage $0.000003
per second 180,000 vCPU-seconds free grant per month
Memory (GiB-Seconds)
active usage $0.000003 and idle usage $0.000003
per second 360,000 GiB-seconds free grant per month
Basic Cloud Functions Rate
$0.00017
per second of execution
API Gateway Rate
Free
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Free Trial
NoNoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Considered Multiple Products
AWS Lambda

No answer on this topic

Azure Container Apps

No answer on this topic

IBM Cloud Functions
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
AWS Lambda might be more suited for larger scaled companies looking to consistently access similar features at a higher volume/frequency, but for smaller teams with a limited budget, IBM's Cloud Functions are a competitive choice
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
AWS Lambda is 100 times more robust than IBM cloud functions. They essentially do the same thing, but AWS works. AWS is stable. we have had epic failures with cloud functions. Support was horrible. We literally had an open ticket with them for 2 months and it literally went …
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
IBM Cloud Functions are native to IBM Cloud and are easy to integrate into other IBM Cloud applications.
Features
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Access Control and Security
Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
8.8
7 Ratings
3% below category average
Azure Container Apps
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)8.67 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Single Sign-On (SSO)9.13 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
5.0
6 Ratings
32% below category average
Azure Container Apps
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Dashboards5.56 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Standard reports5.25 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Custom reports4.45 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Function as a Service (FaaS)
Comparison of Function as a Service (FaaS) features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
8.7
7 Ratings
0% above category average
Azure Container Apps
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Programming Language Diversity9.07 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Runtime API Authoring8.07 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Function/Database Integration8.97 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
DevOps Stack Integration8.97 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
-
Ratings
Azure Container Apps
5.3
2 Ratings
38% below category average
IBM Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Ease of building user interfaces00 Ratings5.72 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings7.72 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings6.42 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings5.72 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings4.62 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings4.72 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment creation00 Ratings4.32 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment replication00 Ratings4.02 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings5.42 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue recovery00 Ratings4.02 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes00 Ratings6.12 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Small Businesses
IBM Cloud Functions
IBM Cloud Functions
Score 6.9 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.3 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
7.7
(52 ratings)
6.4
(2 ratings)
3.0
(7 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
2.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.3
(17 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.7
(20 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
AWS LambdaAzure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
Amazon AWS
Lambda excels at event-driven, short-lived tasks, such as processing files or building simple APIs. However, it's less ideal for long-running, computationally intensive, or applications that rely on carrying the state between jobs. Cold starts and constant load can easily balloon the costs.
Read full review
Microsoft
Azure Container Apps is a welcome addition for sure. Based on my experience, this has enabled us to move fully to the cloud and managed everywhere in one spot and on the go. We can scale it to our end as much as we would like. It can be assess anywhere and it is fully secure
Read full review
IBM
IBM Cloud Functions [is] not the worse product on the IBM cloud. I decided to write this review as I thought it would be balanced. I would still use functions to set up a serverless architecture where execution time is pretty quick and the code is relatively simple. I wouldn't use IBM Cloud Functions for async calls obviously, as costs could be higher. The functions documentation is lacking in terms of CI/CD, and there are unexplainable errors occurring - like the network connection that I mentioned. So I wouldn't just rely on IBM Cloud Functions too much for the entire system, but make sure it's diversified.
Read full review
Pros
Amazon AWS
  • No provisioning required - we don't have to pay anything upfront
  • Serverless deployment - it gets executed only when request comes and we pay only for the time the request is getting executed
  • Integrates well with AWS CloudWatch triggers so it is easy to setup scheduled tasks like cron jobs
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Gives user a level of autonomous access
  • No control plane or node pool to manage
  • Less kubernetes experience required
  • Easily integrate with Azure devops
Read full review
IBM
  • Great substitute for a simple API calls to run non-complicated code.
  • Easy way to run Python/Java/Javascript to get something done.
  • File validation.
Read full review
Cons
Amazon AWS
  • Developing test cases for Lambda functions can be difficult. For functions that require some sort of input it can be tough to develop the proper payload and event for a test.
  • For the uninitiated, deploying functions with Infrastructure as Code tools can be a challenging undertaking.
  • Logging the output of a function feels disjointed from running the function in the console. A tighter integration with operational logging would be appreciated, perhaps being able to view function logs from the Lambda console instead of having to navigate over to CloudWatch.
  • Sometimes its difficult to determine the correct permissions needed for Lambda execution from other AWS services.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Continue to enhance security
  • Better pricing
  • Flexibility
Read full review
IBM
  • Billing can be a hassle, not the most responsive customer service/support team
  • Handles & executes most functionalities, but other platforms offer more scalability if you're seeking consistent and stable growth
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
I would rather use AKS for my critical applications. The fact that the deployment process is dependent on as cli makes it hard for us to integrate with our standard CI/CD tools
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Usability
Amazon AWS
I give it a seven is usability because it's AWS. Their UI's are always clunkier than the competition and their documentation is rather cumbersome. There's SO MUCH to dig through and it's a gamble if you actually end up finding the corresponding info if it will actually help. Like I said before, going to google with a specific problem is likely a better route because AWS is quite ubiquitous and chances are you're not the first to encounter the problem. That being said, using SAM (Serverless application model) and it's SAM Local environment makes running local instances of your Lambdas in dev environments painless and quite fun. Using Nodejs + Lambda + SAM Local + VS Code debugger = AWESOME.
Read full review
Microsoft
Azure Container Apps are fantastic and it is a game changer. I would recommend it to anyone considering it. As you can scale it to what you would like and it is fully cloud native with better security. It is a no brainier not to consider it. I do believe that with further improve it will become even more attractive
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Amazon AWS
Amazon consistently provides comprehensive and easy-to-parse documentation of all AWS features and services. Most development team members find what they need with a quick internet search of the AWS documentation available online. If you need advanced support, though, you might need to engage an AWS engineer, and that could be an unexpected (or unwelcome) expense.
Read full review
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
IBM
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Amazon AWS
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 both front-end and back-end infrastructure, while AWS Lambda is only for small back-end functions
Read full review
Microsoft
Read full review
IBM
  • ICF is a lightweight service and does not require runtime configurations
  • Scalable on demand and hence there is no need to pay for runtime costs
Read full review
Return on Investment
Amazon AWS
  • Positive - Only paying for when code is run, unlike virtual machines where you pay always regardless of processing power usage.
  • Positive - Scalability and accommodating larger amounts of demand is much cheaper. Instead of scaling up virtual machines and increasing the prices you pay for that, you are just increasing the number of times your lambda function is run.
  • Negative - Debugging/troubleshooting, and developing for lambda functions take a bit more time to get used to, and migrating code from virtual machines and normal processes to Lambda functions can take a bit of time.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • As it is cloud native, we no longer required to have onsite prem
  • Reducing both from an energy and security perspective
  • It is worth the investment as we have saved about 10% of our ICT cost
Read full review
IBM
  • It directly affected our expenses since we do not need to deploy and maintain a set of separate applications.
  • It allowed us to pay for only the amount of time cloud functions run.
  • It saved on maintenance and monitoring of the applications it replaced.
Read full review
ScreenShots