Azure App Service vs. Google Cloud Functions

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure App Service
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
The Microsoft Azure App Service is a PaaS that enables users to build, deploy, and scale web apps and APIs, a fully managed service with built-in infrastructure maintenance, security patching, and scaling. Includes Azure Web Apps, Azure Mobile Apps, Azure API Apps, allowing developers to use popular frameworks including .NET, .NET Core, Java, Node.js, Python, PHP, and Ruby.
$9.49
per month
Google Cloud Functions
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
Google Cloud Functions enables users to run code in the cloud with no servers or containers to manage. Cloud Functions is a scalable, pay-as-you-go functions as a service (FaaS) product to help build and connect event driven services with simple, single purpose code.N/A
Pricing
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Editions & Modules
Shared Environment for dev/test
$9.49
per month
Basic Dedicated environment for dev/test
$54.75
per month
Standard Run production workloads
$73
per month
Premium Enhanced performance and scale
$146
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsFree and Shared (preview) plans are ideal for testing applications in a managed Azure environment. Basic, Standard and Premium plans are for production workloads and run on dedicated Virtual Machine instances. Each instance can support multiple applications and domains.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Features
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Azure App Service
6.4
7 Ratings
19% below category average
Google Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Ease of building user interfaces7.47 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability7.17 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform management overhead7.27 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability6.45 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control7.66 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration6.16 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment creation6.47 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment replication6.16 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification6.37 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue recovery4.56 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes4.96 Ratings00 Ratings
Access Control and Security
Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Product A and Product B
Azure App Service
-
Ratings
Google Cloud Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
10% above category average
Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Single Sign-On (SSO)00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
Azure App Service
-
Ratings
Google Cloud Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
36% above category average
Dashboards00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Standard reports00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Custom reports00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Function as a Service (FaaS)
Comparison of Function as a Service (FaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Azure App Service
-
Ratings
Google Cloud Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
14% above category average
Programming Language Diversity00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Runtime API Authoring00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Function/Database Integration00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
DevOps Stack Integration00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Small Businesses
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
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
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
9.1
(9 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(1 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(2 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure App ServiceGoogle Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
You may easily deploy your apps to Azure App Service if they were written in Visual Studio IDE (typically.NET applications). With a few clicks of the mouse, you may already deploy your application to a remote server using the Visual Studio IDE. As a result of the portal's bulk and complexity, I propose Heroku for less-experienced developers.
Read full review
Google
It is easy to use, in 15 minutes you just have to follow a few steps, do some easy configurations and you have the project ready to run, once it is connected to the codebase, the execution is automatic. For anyone coming into the google environment, Functions make code execution easy and transparent. CI/CD is perfect
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • Extremely easy to deploy and update from Visual Studio
  • It integrates seamlessly with other Azure PaaS resources
  • It has an in-depth integration with AppInsights, so you can understand errors and their root cause easily.
  • Easy to create and delete, what is not the same case in a IaaS resource
  • It escalates based on CPU workload and some other resource variables.
  • Configuration changes are almost immediate
  • Offers an excellent abstraction from hardware backend of the platform
  • That's updated very often, saving time and the risk of a self-performed update over a IaaS
  • That's really easy to develop for Web Apps
  • It supports Function Apps and Web Apps into the same "cost black box"
Read full review
Google
  • integration with oAuth
  • integration with Firebase
  • integration with React Frontend
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • Jumps between resource sizes can get expensive
  • You may wind up putting a lot of eggs in one basket--not necessarily a con but something to keep in mind (most of your data will likely be managed and processed through Microsoft products/services if you fully commit to Azure App Service).
  • Learning new technology. If you're moving from on-premises to Azure App Service (or any cloud solutions), you'll likely have to rethink how things are done to achieve the same end results (and/or resources may become expensive quickly).
Read full review
Google
  • Needing a zip file is problematic (when wanting to automate deployment for example).
  • Requires another solution to execute automatically (ex. cloud scheduler).
Read full review
Usability
Microsoft
I have given this rating because Azure App Service performs very well in terms of speed, reliability, and reducing overhead, and improves overall team productivity, with a little scope for improvement in complex testing scenarios and configurations, scalability concerns in a large setup, and similar tracking and audit needs.
Read full review
Google
Overall Google Cloud Functions is losing a lot of benefits to other GCP services, making it less attractive to users. A simple example would be the need to zip application files and push them to Google Storage which makes it a bit complicated to automate via a CI/CD pipeline. Another "similar" solution would be using Cloud Run although the need for a docker image is there, with the recent evolutions to Cloud Run (ability to downscale to 0) it makes a lot more interesting.
Read full review
Support Rating
Microsoft
Microsoft has always been known for providing a high standard in terms of customer support and Azure App Service (and as a matter of fact the whole Azure Platform) is no exception. Azure App Service never caused us any issues and we only contacted their customer support for questions regarding server locations and pricing. I feel pretty satisfied with how they treat their customers.
Read full review
Google
Documentation is provided and clear for this service. Although GCP support is included in the current contract we didn't get to use it since the process is pretty straightforward.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
When we chose it, we did so because of its integration with Microsoft applications; now we need to integrate with AI, and Azure doesn't offer a good integration. That is the main reason to change it. It is still great to develop Windows- and Microsoft-based applications, but if we need to integrate with AI, Google wins by far.
Read full review
Google
It is easier to keep everything in house when we are using GCP or AWS. To mix Lambda with google cloud is not a best practice and will cause problems ahead. The segmentation is clear, if you are using google, you use Google Cloud Functions. if you are on Amazon, you use all AWS tools. You can't mix them. The price is set.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • Deployment of ASP.NET apps at the organization has been sped up.
  • An option to offer access to the version control system on a third platform so that we could easily deploy our apps.
  • Because of Azure App Service's scalability capabilities, the costs of running the services are kept to a minimum. As a result, we may save hundreds of dollars each month compared to the expenses of traditional servers by using fewer resources during slack periods.
Read full review
Google
  • For training purposes, it is free
  • Budgeting makes it cap the use
  • monitoring makes it predictable
Read full review
ScreenShots