TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Azure Container Apps

    Score5.7 out of 10
    N/AAzure 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

    Score6.5 out of 10
    N/AIBM 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 Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
    Editions & Modules
    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
    Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
    Free Trial
    NoNo
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details——
    More Pricing Information
    Features
    Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
    Platform-as-a-Service
    Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Azure Container Apps and IBM Cloud Functions
    Feature
    Azure Container Apps
    5.3
    2 Ratings
    37% below category average
    IBM Cloud Functions
    -
    Ratings
    Ease of building user interfaces5.82 Ratings00 Ratings
    Scalability7.82 Ratings00 Ratings
    Platform management overhead6.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Workflow engine capability5.82 Ratings00 Ratings
    Platform access control4.42 Ratings00 Ratings
    Services-enabled integration4.82 Ratings00 Ratings
    Development environment creation4.22 Ratings00 Ratings
    Development environment replication4.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Issue monitoring and notification5.62 Ratings00 Ratings
    Issue recovery4.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Upgrades and platform fixes5.82 Ratings00 Ratings
    Best Alternatives
    Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
    Small Businesses
    IBM Cloud Foundry
    Score8.5 out of 10
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    IBM Cloud Private
    Score9.6 out of 10
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    Enterprises
    AWS Elastic Beanstalk
    Score8.6 out of 10
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
    Likelihood to Recommend
    6.6
    (2 ratings)
    3.0
    (7 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    2.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Usability
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
    Likelihood to Recommend
    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
    Incentivized
    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
    • Gives user a level of autonomous access
    • No control plane or node pool to manage
    • Less kubernetes experience required
    • Easily integrate with Azure devops
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Microsoft
    • Continue to enhance security
    • Better pricing
    • Flexibility
    Incentivized
    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
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    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
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    Usability
    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
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    Alternatives Considered
    Microsoft
    Incentivized
    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
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    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
    Incentivized
    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.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots