Azure App Service vs. IBM 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
IBM Cloud Functions
Score 8.1 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
Azure App ServiceIBM 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
Basic Cloud Functions Rate
$0.00017
per second of execution
API Gateway Rate
Free
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure App ServiceIBM 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 ServiceIBM Cloud Functions
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
Azure App ServiceIBM Cloud Functions
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Azure App Service
8.4
4 Ratings
3% above category average
IBM Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Ease of building user interfaces9.04 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability9.64 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform management overhead6.54 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability6.53 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control9.44 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration9.54 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment creation9.44 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment replication10.03 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification8.04 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue recovery7.14 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes7.04 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure App ServiceIBM Cloud Functions
Small Businesses
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Score 9.0 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM Cloud Private
IBM Cloud Private
Score 9.5 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.8 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM Cloud Private
IBM Cloud Private
Score 9.5 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure App ServiceIBM Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
6.4
(8 ratings)
3.0
(7 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure App ServiceIBM 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
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
Microsoft
  • It has options to deploy using CI/CD.
  • It has great integration with Azure Devops
  • It has all the common runtimes, so we don't need to install softwares.
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
Microsoft
  • the learning curve can be tough (just like other azure services)
  • the UX/UI could be more intuitive (just like other azure services as well)
  • monitoring can be hard to understand
  • Microsoft's learning resources are hard to understand
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
Support Rating
Microsoft
We had an issue where we deployed too large of a resource and didn't notice until the bill came through. They were very understanding and saw we weren't utilizing the resources so they issued a generous refund in about 4 hours. Very fast, friendly, and understanding support reps from my experience.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
Azure has many data center, their services are more reliable. Azure has way more features than both Linode and DigitalOcean. If someone wants a complete reliable service, he/she must go to Azure instead of Linode and DigitalOcean because even though azure charges more, it is worth the money you pay there.
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
Microsoft
  • Reduced the deployment time of ASP .NET applications in the company.
  • Gave us an alternative to quickly deploy our applications without granting access to the version control system to a third platform.
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