Azure Functions enables users to execute event-driven serverless code functions with an end-to-end development experience.
$18
per month approximately
Engine Yard
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Engine Yard is a platform-as-a-service solution allowing developers to plan, build, deploy, and manage applications in the cloud. Engine Yard also provides services for deployment, managing AWS, supporting databases, and microservices & container development.
$800
Per Month Per Cluster
Google Cloud Run
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Google Cloud Run enables users to build and deploy scalable containerized apps written in any language (including Go, Python, Java, Node.js, .NET, and Ruby) on a fully managed platform. Cloud Run can be paired with other container ecosystem tools, including Google's Cloud Build, Cloud Code, Artifact Registry, and Docker. And it features out-of-the-box integration with Cloud Monitoring, Cloud Logging, Cloud Trace, and Error Reporting to ensure the health of an application.
N/A
Pricing
Azure Functions
Engine Yard
Google Cloud Run
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Platform
$800.00
Per Month Per Cluster
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Functions
Engine Yard
Google Cloud Run
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Yes
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
Azure Functions
Engine Yard
Google Cloud Run
Considered Multiple Products
Azure Functions
No answer on this topic
Engine Yard
No answer on this topic
Google Cloud Run
Verified User
Director
Chose Google Cloud Run
The other two obvious cloud providers have direct alternatives: AWS Lambda and Azure Functions. Both were also evaluated briefly (only to validate that they exist); however, the organization had settled on shifting to Google for business reasons, and therefore, the comparison …
The Goolge docs for their products as well as the UI is a lot nicer than AWS or Azure and in general I found it much easy to work with. We selected Google mainly because of startup credits and the support offered but can confidently say we would choose them again without that …
They're great to embed logic and code in a medium-small, cloud-native application, but they can become quite limiting for complex, enterprise applications.
Microservices and RestFul API application as it is fast and reliant. Seamless integration with event triggers such as pubsub or event arc, so you can easily integrate that with usecases with file uploads, database changes, etc. Basically great with short-lived tasks, if however, you have long-running processses, Cloud Run might not be idle for this. For example if you have a long running data processing task, other solutions such as kubeflow pipelines or dataflow are more suited for this kind of tasks. Cloud Run is also stateless, so if you need memory, you will have to connect an external database.
They natively integrate with many triggers from other Azure services, like Blob Storage or Event Grid, which is super handy when creating cloud-native applications on Azure (data wrangling pipelines, business process automation, data ingestion for IoT, ...)
They natively support many common languages and frameworks, which makes them easily approachable by teams with a diverse background
They are cheap solutions for low-usage or "seasonal" applications that exhibits a recurring usage/non-usage pattern (batch processing, montly reports, ...)
My biggest complaint is that they promote a development model that tightly couples the infrastructure with the app logic. This can be fine in many scenarios, but it can take some time to build the right abstractions if you want to decouple you application from this deployment model. This is true at least using .NET functions.
In some points, they "leak" their abstraction and - from what I understood - they're actually based on the App Service/Web App "WebJob SDK" infrastructure. This makes sense, since they also share some legacy behavior from their ancestor.
For larger projects, their mixing of logic, code and infrastructure can become difficult to manage. In these situations, good App Services or brand new Container Apps could be a better fit.
The UI can be made simpler. Currently the UI is bloated and it takes time to find out what you want
More integrations with container registry providers (ECR, dockerhub)
Better permissions UX. Currently GCP requires service accounts to be used with cloud products, the experience adding/removing permissions is difficult to navigate
The UI/console is great... the documentation is top-notch for developers, but the CLI itself when you have to script around it is very complex and easy to forget some options... the downside of a generic command line client.
This is the most straightforward and easy-to-implement server less solution. App Service is great, but it's designed for websites, and it cannot scale automatically as easily as Azure Functions. Container Apps is a robust and scalable choice, but they need much more planning, development and general work to implement. Container Instances are the same as Container Apps, but they are extremely more limited in termos of capacity. Kubernetes Service si the classic pod container on Azure, but it requires highly skilled professional, and there are not many scenario where it should be used, especially in smaller teams.
They allowed me to create solutions with low TCO for the customer, which loves the result and the low price, that helped me create solutions for more clients in less time.
You can save up to 100% of your compute bill, if you stay under a certain tenant conditions.