Azure Functions vs. Google Cloud Functions

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure Functions
Score 8.8 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 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 FunctionsGoogle Cloud Functions
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure FunctionsGoogle Cloud Functions
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Features
Azure FunctionsGoogle Cloud Functions
Access Control and Security
Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Product A and Product B
Azure Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
10% above category average
Google Cloud Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
10% above category average
Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)10.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Single Sign-On (SSO)10.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
Azure Functions
7.0
1 Ratings
1% above category average
Google Cloud Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
36% above category average
Dashboards7.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Standard reports9.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Custom reports5.01 Ratings10.01 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
1% above category average
Google Cloud Functions
10.0
1 Ratings
14% above category average
Programming Language Diversity9.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Runtime API Authoring8.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Function/Database Integration9.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
DevOps Stack Integration9.01 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure FunctionsGoogle 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 FunctionsGoogle Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(1 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure FunctionsGoogle Cloud Functions
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
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
  • 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
  • integration with oAuth
  • integration with Firebase
  • integration with React Frontend
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
  • 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
No answers on this topic
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
No answers on this topic
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
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
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
  • 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
  • For training purposes, it is free
  • Budgeting makes it cap the use
  • monitoring makes it predictable
Read full review
ScreenShots