AWS IoT Core is a managed cloud service that lets connected devices interact with cloud applications and other devices. It includes the Device Gateway and the Message Broker, which connect and process messages between IoT devices and the cloud. AWS IoT Core connects AWS and Amazon services like AWS Lambda, Amazon Kinesis, Amazon S3, Amazon SageMaker, Amazon DynamoDB, Amazon CloudWatch, AWS CloudTrail, Amazon QuickSight, and Alexa Voice Service to build IoT applications that gather, process,…
$0.08
Per Million Minutes
Flutter
Score 7.8 out of 10
N/A
Flutter is an open-source mobile application development framework created by Google. It is used to develop applications for Android and iOS, as well as being the primary method of creating applications for Google Fuchsia.
N/A
Pricing
AWS IoT Core
Flutter by Google
Editions & Modules
Connectivity
$0.08
Per Million Minutes
Rules Engine
$0.15
Per Million Actions
Messaging
$1.00
Per Million Messages
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AWS IoT Core
Flutter
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AWS IoT Core
Flutter by Google
Considered Both Products
AWS IoT Core
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose AWS IoT Core
Azure IoT is a good product but since our whole suite of tech is now set up in AWS (ec2, s3, sagemaker, cloud formation, etc.), we wanted something that could quickly adapt to our environments. Learning a new tech for IoT was simply a bottleneck that we wanted to avoid at this …
AWS iot core is a good starting point which can be utilized for a variety of enterprise solutions. Barrier to entry to experiment and try AWS iot core is less and AWS eco-system providers ensure that even startups can try a variety of solutions and build key skills and …
Azure IoT service provides more or less the same services as compared to AWS IoT core, however the costing of AWS lead us to continued usage of IoT core over Azure IoT services. Also, considering our existing technology stack is on AWS, it was a natural selection for better …
It turns out that AWS IoT Core is the most mature solution on the market with the best variety of integration tools available. On the downside, it is not the cheapest platform existing out there. Amazon IoT Core is easy to start and set up, and our prior engagement with Amazon …
For our use case, we ended up with AWS because the human resources that were planning to be resourced on this particular project happened to have prior familiarity with the AWS ecosystem. The conversation became can we justify continuing with this ecosystem rather than pivoting …
We have checked other IoT platforms such as IBM Watson IoT and Microsoft Azure IoT, but Amazon IoT Core seems reasonable in terms of pricing and overall functionalities. Amazon IoT Core is easy to start and set up and our prior engagement with Amazon for AWS was a factor to go …
AWS IoT Core is faster, easier, cheaper, and enjoyed by our employees more than Microsoft Azure. We selected AWS IoT because we saw an advertisement for it and have used it ever since. We will continue to use it as long as it is around or until we find one that is better.
We prefer Amazon storage and content delivery S3 services rather than Microsoft Blob Storage. Also, AWS IoT Core seems to be the cheaper alternative compared to Azure IoT.
I have experience with react and react native. I would say that the idea behind all those frameworks are quite similar. However, I found the javascript-based frameworks a bit more accessible as you could utilise your javascript knowledge. Here, Flutter works with its own …
- Like it better than other solutions, or building native on both platforms. - React Native has a good advantage with language and amazing web support. - React Native is easier to jump in for web engineers.
I have not used Dev Express Universal and Selenium Web Driver much besides in the demos that were provided to our company. We compared the demos and went with Google Flutter because it worked well and looked noticeably better than the other products. While I am unsure of the …
Flutter is a bit different from Android Studio, the latter one being an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) while Flutter itself is a Cross-Platform Mobile Development SDK (Software Development Kit). Flutter provides the access to the native features and built-in plugins …
I selected Flutter because of Flutter's awesome, pre-build UI components. It makes my life as an indie dev easy and fun. At the time, I had never built an application with React Native, so this was a fantastic introduction to cross-platform development. That said, as someone …
I think that Flutter is now much better than Microsoft's Xamarin and the old Apache Cordova. I was able to go from a concept design to a working application in almost no time and with almost no experience with Dart at all. It helps (but it is not a requirement) to have some …
Way less tweaking to have a cross-platform experience, better performance, and feels more like a native app. But the community, while growing, is still smaller than React Native. This can cause issues with specific use cases as it's harder to find help online.
React Native seemed like a comparable and equally valid choice to Flutter. Performance, ease of development, and support are roughly equal between the two products. Dart, to me, felt easier to work with than Javascript or Typescript. Flutter SDK tools and VSCode extensions made …
The app generated by Flutter doesn't change upon OS versions as in native apps or other cross-platform apps. The running speed of apps is much faster than its competitors like react-native and Cordova. It's lightweight and faster to compare to other cross-platform. The hot …
The main alternative to Flutter I have experience with, is Qt framework. For a long time, Qt was the go-to if you wanted a cross platform desktop application, probably written in C++ or Python, that could take on the 'look and feel' of the target platform. However, Qt is …
AWS iot core is very useful if you need to scale very quickly for managing lots of devices without handling the underlying infrastructure cost. It can enable real time publishing and subscription of devices, monitoring and early stage intervention in case of unexpected issues while developing a full stack solution. However, healthcare scenarios where government intervention is needed should be developed and scaled by following the set of compliance policies of the government and the SLA requirements of the customer. Finally, it is great where you need to do data science research after anonymizing data
Flutter is well known for native app development, if you have android studio installed on your system, you can quickly start using it. This might not be the best choice for you if you do not wish to learn a new language, i.e. Dart and you do not know it already.
Occasionally updates to the Flutter SDK result in wide-sweeping changes that seem to not be thoroughly tested and considered. Flutter sometimes evolves too fast for its own good.
While the 3rd-party Flutter package ecosystem is vast and rich, 1st-party support for basic things (audio/video playback, battery information, Bluetooth services, etc.) are lacking. You are occasionally forced to rely on an open-source package for use-cases that other platforms have native support for.
Documentation, particularly around testing, is lacking. While there are some great docs, like the Dart Style Guide, many Flutter-focused support documents are lacking in quality and real-world usability.
Flutter allows you to architect an app however you want. While this is a great feature, it also adds complexity and leads to the current state of Flutter's state management, where there are 50+ options on how to organize your app, with very little official guidance or recommendations from the Flutter team. For a beginner, this can create decision paralysis.
I give AWS IoT Core's overall usability this rating because it is very easy to use and is enjoyed by all of our staff. The only problem is that it sometimes glitches and it freezes a lot. So overall, the usability of AWS IoT Core is very good, and we will continue to use it.
It covers all the aspects of IoT services required for an IoT company. It supports all the industry-wide protocols for secure data transmission and integrates powerful AL and ML technology for data analytics. For data storage, Amazon S3 is a great solution. Strong tech support and user community. Since it is widely used as compared to other products, there is an abundance of training and learning material on the web.
Azure IoT is a good product but since our whole suite of tech is now set up in AWS (ec2, s3, sagemaker, cloud formation, etc.), we wanted something that could quickly adapt to our environments. Learning a new tech for IoT was simply a bottleneck that we wanted to avoid at this point.
I have experience with react and React Native. I would say that the idea behind all those frameworks are quite similar. However, I found the javascript-based frameworks a bit more accessible as you could utilise your javascript knowledge. Here, Flutter works with its own language. This has advantages and disadvantages sometimes. I found the community around javascript frameworks bigger and therefore sometimes more helpful. However, Flutter does a good job here as well. I think the main argument for Flutter is its usability for less experienced developers. If you do not have knowledge in javascript or other programming languages then I think it is much easier to start with Flutter than with another framework like react. I think the package that you get form scratch is better than in the other frameworks were you have to set up and learn a lot more before you can start.
The rapid development capabilities of Flutter allow us to build apps we could not have previously considered commercially viable, opening new revenue streams.
Free and open licensing made adoption very easy (ie. free/low cost!).
In comparison to Qt, our time spent arguing with build tools and perfecting development environments has decreased substantially.