Azure Functions vs. Google App Engine

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure Functions
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Azure Functions enables users to execute event-driven serverless code functions with an end-to-end development experience.
$18
per month approximately
Google App Engine
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Google App Engine is Google Cloud's platform-as-a-service offering. It features pay-per-use pricing and support for a broad array of programming languages.
$0.05
Per Hour Per Instance
Pricing
Azure FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Starting Price
$0.05
Per Hour Per Instance
Max Price
$0.30
Per Hour Per Instance
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Features
Azure FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Access Control and Security
Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Product A and Product B
Azure Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
13% above category average
Google App Engine
-
Ratings
Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Single Sign-On (SSO)10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
Azure Functions
7.0
1 Ratings
16% above category average
Google App Engine
-
Ratings
Dashboards7.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Standard reports9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Custom reports5.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Function as a Service (FaaS)
Comparison of Function as a Service (FaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Azure Functions
8.8
1 Ratings
7% above category average
Google App Engine
-
Ratings
Programming Language Diversity9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Runtime API Authoring8.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Function/Database Integration9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
DevOps Stack Integration9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Azure Functions
-
Ratings
Google App Engine
8.7
31 Ratings
10% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces00 Ratings9.017 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings9.031 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings9.031 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings9.023 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings9.030 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings8.027 Ratings
Development environment creation00 Ratings9.028 Ratings
Development environment replication00 Ratings8.027 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings9.027 Ratings
Issue recovery00 Ratings9.025 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes00 Ratings8.028 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Small Businesses
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.5 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.5 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 FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(1 ratings)
8.0
(35 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.3
(8 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.7
(7 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.4
(12 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure FunctionsGoogle App Engine
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
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.
Read full review
Google
App Engine is such a good resource for our team both internally and externally. You have complete control over your app, how it runs, when it runs, and more while Google handles the back-end, scaling, orchestration, and so on. If you are serving a tool, system, or web page, it's perfect. If you are serving something back-end, like an automation or ETL workflow, you should be a little considerate or careful with how you are structuring that job. For instance, the Standard environment in Google App Engine will present you with a resource limit for your server calls. If your operations are known to take longer than, say, 10 minutes or so, you may be better off moving to the Flexible environment (which may be a little more expensive but certainly a little more powerful and a little less limited) or even moving that workflow to something like Google Compute Engine or another managed service.
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • 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, ...)
Read full review
Google
  • Quick to develop, quick to deploy. You can be up and running on Google App Engine in no time.
  • Flexible. We use Java for some services and Node.js for others.
  • Great security features. We have been consistently impressed with the security and authentication features of Google App Engine.
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • 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.
Read full review
Google
  • There is a slight learning curve to getting used to code on Google App Engine.
  • Google Cloud Datastore is Google's NoSQL database in the cloud that your applications can use. NoSQL databases, by design, cannot give handle complex queries on the data. This means that sometimes you need to think carefully about your data structures - so that you can get the results you need in your code.
  • Setting up billing is a little annoying. It does not seem to save billing information to your account so you can re-use the same information across different Cloud projects. Each project requires you to re-enter all your billing information (if required)
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Google
App Engine is a solid choice for deployments to Google Cloud Platform that do not want to move entirely to a Kubernetes-based container architecture using a different Google product. For rapid prototyping of new applications and fairly straightforward web application deployments, we'll continue to leverage the capabilities that App Engine affords us.
Read full review
Usability
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Google
Google App Engine is very intuitive. It has the common programming language most would use. Google is a dependable name and I have not had issues with their servers being down....ever. You can safely use their service and store your data on their servers without worrying about downtime or loss of data.
Read full review
Support Rating
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Google
Good amount of documentation available for Google App Engine and in general there is large developer community around Google App Engine and other products it interacts with. Lastly, Google support is great in general. No issues so far with them.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
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.
Read full review
Google
We were on another much smaller cloud provider and decided to make the switch for several reasons - stability, breadth of services, and security. In reviewing options, GCP provided the best mixtures of meeting our needs while also balancing the overall cost of the service as compared to the other major players in Azure and AWS.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • 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.
Read full review
Google
  • Effective employee adoption through ease of use.
  • Effective integration to other java based frameworks.
  • Time to market is very quick. Build, test, deploy and use.
  • The GAE Whitelist for java is an important resource to know what works and what does not. So use it. It would also be nice for Google to expand on items that are allowed on GAE platform.
Read full review
ScreenShots