Azure Health Data Services vs. IBM Cloud Functions

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.

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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