TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Azure Functions

    Score8.9 out of 10
    N/AAzure Functions enables users to execute event-driven serverless code functions with an end-to-end development experience.

    $18

    per month approximately

    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 FunctionsIBM Cloud Functions
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    Basic Cloud Functions Rate
    $0.00017
    per second of execution
    API Gateway Rate
    Free
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    Azure FunctionsIBM 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 FunctionsIBM Cloud Functions
    Access Control and Security
    Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Azure Functions and IBM Cloud Functions
    Feature
    Azure Functions
    10.0
    2 Ratings
    17% above category average
    IBM Cloud Functions
    -
    Ratings
    Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)10.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Single Sign-On (SSO)10.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Reporting & Analytics
    Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Azure Functions and IBM Cloud Functions
    Feature
    Azure Functions
    8.3
    2 Ratings
    23% above category average
    IBM Cloud Functions
    -
    Ratings
    Dashboards9.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Standard reports8.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Custom reports8.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Function as a Service (FaaS)
    Comparison of Function as a Service (FaaS) features of Azure Functions and IBM Cloud Functions
    Feature
    Azure Functions
    10.0
    2 Ratings
    18% above category average
    IBM Cloud Functions
    -
    Ratings
    Programming Language Diversity10.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Runtime API Authoring10.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Function/Database Integration10.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    DevOps Stack Integration10.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Best Alternatives
    Azure FunctionsIBM Cloud Functions
    Small Businesses
    IBM Cloud Functions
    Score6.5 out of 10
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    Enterprises
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Azure FunctionsIBM Cloud Functions
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.0
    (2 ratings)
    3.0
    (7 ratings)
    Usability
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Azure FunctionsIBM Cloud Functions
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Microsoft
    It is well suited for REST APIs that need scalable functionality and for hosting microservices with a short life cycle. It is not well suited for Applications that need real-time features or heavy processing, such as image processing or model training, that need to stay up for longer periods and require compute.
    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
    • 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, ...)
    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
    • Timing for creating new instances.
    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
    Usability
    Microsoft
    Sometimes the Azure dashboard can feel confusing at first, and it can be hard to understand where things are. But overall, it has good integrations, is trustworthy for running there without disruptions, is well-documented and easy to implement, especially for newbies on the team, and has nice automated deployment features.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    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.
    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
    • 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.
    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