AWS Lambda vs. IBM Cloud Foundry

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
AWS Lambda is a serverless computing platform that lets users run code without provisioning or managing servers. With Lambda, users can run code for virtually any type of app or backend service—all with zero administration. It takes of requirements to run and scale code with high availability.
$NaN
Per 1 ms
IBM Cloud Foundry
Score 6.0 out of 10
N/A
IBM Cloud Foundry is an IBM version of the open-source platform designed for building, testing, deploying, and scaling applications. Enterprises can run Cloud Foundry in a public isolated environment, while natively integrating with other IBM Cloud services, such as AI, Blockchain, and IoT.
$0.07
Per GBH
Pricing
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Editions & Modules
128 MB
$0.0000000021
Per 1 ms
1024 MB
$0.0000000167
Per 1 ms
10240 MB
$0.0000001667
Per 1 ms
Community Runtimes
$0.07
Per GBH
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Considered Both Products
AWS Lambda
Chose AWS Lambda
It's fine, it works as the others would have, except EC2. We are migrating back to EC2 for dedicated compute because we have scaled to a point where we have consistent traffic. The tradeoff of maintaining infrastructure in-house outweighs the benefits of moving quickly through …
Chose AWS Lambda
We use AWS as our primary cloud provider due to the overall availability of services, AWS Lambda is just one of the services we use with AWS which allows a more seamless integration for our microservices. AWS Lambda gives us much more flexibility and can be invoked by more …
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda is much easier to use than the near alternatives. It is so straightforward and lightweight it is my primary service for handling small transactions or triggers. The other services require more setup time and are more complex to use. AWS Lambda takes your code snippet …
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS is great product and a close match our expectations. It is close to Azure in function but more feature rich with API and support documents. From my experience, it is cheaper compared with our competitors and provides better interface. Overall our dev engineers prefer AWS …
Chose AWS Lambda
I've worked previously with Azure Functions which seems to be the direct competitor to AWS Lambda and while Azure Functions worked just fine there seemed to be more configuration and "magic" behind the scenes to it compared to AWS Lambda which is very straight forward. I …
Chose AWS Lambda
When we use Lambda, we do not need to worry about the infrastructure and costs. AWS can handle it all on its own. For an optimum use case, one can always use AWS Lambda along with API Gateway and Route 53 for the best use case. Cloudwatch can help you identify any issues and …
Chose AWS Lambda
We also use Google Cloud Functions because we use GCP in addition to AWS. AWS Lambda is comparable to Google Cloud Functions in its functionality. The main advantage of going with one or the other has to do with what resources it will interact with--we use AWS Lambda to …
Chose AWS Lambda
I have used Azure Functions and Google Cloud Functions. In comparison, AWS Lambda is a bit more difficult to configure out of the gate. But in most cases once the function is in place and running the operation becomes completely hands-off. While I've used Azure Functions and …
Chose AWS Lambda
Each service has its purpose. With EC2 you can provision servers for customers and internal projects. With EBs you can optimize what you need in performance with what you can afford. With AWS Lambda you can integrate several of these tools to work together or acomplish …
Chose AWS Lambda
I've used Google Cloud Functions to create apps for Google Home devices. My students find this more difficult to use than AWS Lambda, especially when it comes to setting permissions.
Chose AWS Lambda
All our stacks are in AWS currently, we are planning to go multi-cloud soon.
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda is the comparison tool to App Engine. I selected Lambda because the entire stack is basically on Amazon Web Services.
Chose AWS Lambda
We really did not evaluate them against other products except a little Google research, we are a centralized AWS customer so it was a smooth and simple (even if blind) decision for us.
Chose AWS Lambda
Jenkins is a solution for CD/CI pipelines. We can leverage this tool to run code automatically. Long-lived applications and jobs can also be run through it.
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS is a much more mature platform than Microsoft Azure but is a lot more rigid in the portability perspective. If you are in it for the long run then Lambda is great and the best choice.
Chose AWS Lambda
Since our company heavily relies on AWS already, my team did not consider any other serverless platforms when building our applications. Lambda was chosen by "default", but it's also such a popular platform that we felt we couldn't go wrong.
Chose AWS Lambda
These are all AWS sister products, so I wouldn't say they are competitors but tools in the same box. They all work quite well together and I would say combined they are greater than the sum of their parts. Cloudformation (and SAM) templates make tying them together pretty …
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda is good for short running functions, and ideally in response to events within AWS. Google App Engine is a more robust environment which can have complex code running for long periods of time, and across more than one instance of hardware. Google App Engine allows for …
Chose AWS Lambda
But other similar things I've used are Azure Functions and GCP Google Cloud Functions. Like all services like this, the support is pretty much the same. AWS Lambda supports enough popular languages, and behaves pretty much the same as all of these similar services. It does it's …
Chose AWS Lambda
It was the first time I tried anything of this sort. I loved it completely.
Chose AWS Lambda
We considered using application deploy in EC2 with Auto Scale but ended up with AWS Lambda as it helps us to simplify our development and deployment process. It allows us to quickly create instances in a short time for processing data when the source application uploads data …
Chose AWS Lambda
While AWS Lambda doesn't have the UI or the predefined functions that these other services provide, what was apparent to us is the cost saving and flexibility we have with AWS Lambda once we have it set up.
Chose AWS Lambda
I have not tried any other products comparing with AWS Lambda.
Chose AWS Lambda
Work fast with DynamoDB, SNS, SQS and other AWS services.
IBM Cloud Foundry
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
IBM Cloud Foundry is our first choice industry-standard platform as a service (PaaS) which has always provided us with quicker, simpler, and more consistent ways for the deployment of the cloud-native applications which in result saved us lots of time and money.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
IBM Cloud Foundry is easier and faster to get going and offers the same benefits we needed.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Dynatrace Network Application Monitoring (NAM), formerly DCRUM, Azure Application Gateway and Azure App Service
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
When I started with prototyping five months ago, I tried IBM Cloud Foundry and AWS, but finally I preferred IBM Cloud Foundry.

I selected IBM Cloud Foundry because IBM service CLI is quite simple to use in devops. It works with the recent versions of Python and it's not …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Why I prefer IBM Cloud Foundry platform over AWS Elastic Beanstalk or Heroku Platform is the automation of development process and pushing of projects to cloud with clear step by step instructions - which is available on the documentation. I can say categorically, the terminal …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
IBM Cloud Foundry is easy to use and allows for fast and easy deployment of web apps.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
IBM Cloud Foundry provides many programming languages. It is a managed service and it allows us to use only the resouces without the managed overhead.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Ease of use and all the capabilities we need are well built-in. Though we had to work around for p2p security and log draining which is not bad.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Cloud Foundry has lot of benefits because platform as a service provided for the developers to implement applications based on the use cases. Different use cases required different buildpacks to run on. It has flexibility to code, push, and run flexibility. Provided ease of use …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
We have had to move our deployments to Kubernetes because we needed more reliability. We moved to Google because IBM rates and billing was so backward and expensive. Our client was also very angry at all the outages, lost revenue, production down time and inordinately expensive …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
IBM Cloud Foundry is among the services provided by our cloud provider. This is why we choose to go with Cloud Foundry.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
While we are still looking at kubernetes and other services, we will continue to use Cloud Foundry because of the advantages it provides. The support from IBM is good and take a lot of work that our developers and ops had to do away.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
AWS and Digital Ocean; Access to a larger pool of services; whatever your business needs, IBM provides it.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
It is a cloud-based solution and for all my customers that want to migrate to cloud, this is the solution that we are proposing to customers, as it provides a lot of benefits over private cloud. Scalability and resiliency are not a major challenge and it can be used with other …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
CF is what we initially went with to establish a development pipeline and start our cloud journey, now we are expanding this and although we are now pulling in many other tools and functions around CF, it is not being replaced. It stands out as having a key place working ‘with’ …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
IBM Cloud Foundry (CF) is simpler and there is a service model that fits most of our internal services. We are going to Loopback for API and Node.js and we have an easy path to go with Bluemix. It's a very easy way to start if you are moving to the cloud and mainly if you are …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
We chose to go with more bare metal options since Bluemix didn't really offer these at the time. It was simpler to get up and running with the bare metal service, and we felt that any problems we ran into would be a result of our own incompetence rather than problems with the …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
I have use EC2 and Microsoft's Azure. To me, both Azure and Bluemix were fantastic, but they each had some pros and cons. Azure had more services to offer, but their biggest flaw was in their inability to integrate and work with external platforms, APIs, Programs, etc.. Like …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
While IBM works well is when being used by large organizations, these other vendors work well with smaller organizations. We ended up being willing to pay more for Heroku, as they have such an easy-to-use service, and our deployments worked as expected every time.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Used AWS and Azure.
AWS has more features and a far superior interface responsivesness. It's actually usable! That being said default configurations and menus in AWS are more cryptic then necessary.
Azure seems to be the gold standard for pre-configuration and ease of use. …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Bluemix had a much easier route to get into the artificial intelligence side of things with Watson skills. It also seemed a lot more straightforward to use things like the Weather Channel data, sentiment analysis... etc., than the others. I'd also had a bad experience with AWS …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
Not even close--as noted in previous answers, we will likely use the competition before even considering IBM Bluemix.
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
We have used Red Hat which does not do business in Australia with people like us. They were a promising service (PaaS) while we were able to use the free version but as soon as we needed access to serious mobile-first services we had to pay and their policy meant we had to …
Chose IBM Cloud Foundry
I like when the provider offers cloud deployment via standard orchestration mechanisms (like Docker, Kubernetes, DCOS) This is currently well covered by Azure. Amazon also has good flexibility (supports Kubernetes, DCOS). It's good that Bluemix added support for Docker and …
Features
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Access Control and Security
Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
9.3
Ratings
3% below category average
IBM Cloud Foundry
-
Ratings
Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Single Sign-On (SSO)9.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
6.1
Ratings
4% below category average
IBM Cloud Foundry
-
Ratings
Dashboards6.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Standard reports6.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Custom reports5.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Function as a Service (FaaS)
Comparison of Function as a Service (FaaS) features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
7.9
Ratings
3% below category average
IBM Cloud Foundry
-
Ratings
Programming Language Diversity9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Runtime API Authoring8.30 Ratings00 Ratings
Function/Database Integration8.30 Ratings00 Ratings
DevOps Stack Integration6.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
AWS Lambda
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Foundry
7.6
Ratings
5% below category average
Ease of building user interfaces00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings8.50 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings8.50 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings7.50 Ratings
Development environment creation00 Ratings7.70 Ratings
Development environment replication00 Ratings6.40 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings4.70 Ratings
Issue recovery00 Ratings7.50 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes00 Ratings7.50 Ratings
Best Alternatives
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Small Businesses
IBM Cloud Functions
IBM Cloud Functions
Score 8.0 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.3 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Likelihood to Recommend
9.3
(0 ratings)
8.5
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.7
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
AWS LambdaIBM Cloud Foundry
Likelihood to Recommend
Scenarios where AWS Lambda is well suited: 1. When we need to run a periodic task few times in a day or every hour, we may deploy it on AWS Lambda so it would not increase load on our server which is handling client requests and at the same time we don't have to pay for AWS Lambda when it is not running. So, overall we only pay for few function invocations. 2. When some compute intensive processing is to be done but the number of requests per unit of time fluctuates. For example, we had deployed an AWS Lambda for processing images into different sizes and storing them on AWS S3 once user uploads them. Now, this is something that may happen few times every hour on a particular day or may not happen even once on other days. To handle this kind of tasks AWS Lambda is a better choice as we don't have to pay for the idle time of the server and also we don't have to worry about scaling when the load is high. Scenarios where AWS Lambda is not appropriate to use: 1. When we expect a large request volume continuously on the server. 2. When we don't want latency even in case of concurrent requests.
Read full review
IBM Cloud Foundry is a solid service from the IBM Cloud platform. It is easy to learn, and does not usually require you to make drastic changes to your existing applications. It is especially good for new applications that are cloud native, or micro-services, that can be easily updated and deployed. With its blue/green deployment, you can achieve 0 downtime for your customers.
Read full review
Pros
  • AWS Lambda is a welcoming platform, supporting several languages, including Java, Go, PowerShell, Node.js, C#, Python, and Ruby. And if you need to deploy a Lambda function in another language, AWS offers a Runtime API for integration.
  • We really appreciate how AWS Lambda is always-on for our functions, with only a brief "cold-start" waiting period the first time a function is called after being dormant.
  • In addition to only generating costs when it's actually being used, AWS Lambda really puts the "serverless" in serverless architecture, offering turnkey scaleability and high availability for our code with zero effort on our part.
Read full review
  • Intuitive user interface makes it easy for anyone to use, regardless of their professional background.
  • A lot of the services integrate well with external platforms, APIs, and programs, not just IBM services. A lot of the competitors in this space lack this ability.
  • Maybe it is just our contract in particular, but support and help is always made available.
Read full review
Cons
  • The UI and Developer experience is not so great. IF you use an abstraction like Serverless Application Model (SAM), things get pretty easy, but it's still AWS UI/DX you're working with after that (which is to say, not their strength).
  • Documentation is always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's just easier to google your specific problem and see how others have solved it. This can be much faster than trying to find an example that may or may not be there in the documentation (which oftentimes has multiple versions and revisions).
Read full review
  • Sometimes the API Connect GUIs don't cleanly disengage after attaching models or updating schema and it is hard to know what has been written successfully and which (if any) models or tables were missed. I shouldn't have to manually check through a list of 377 models to find the ones in and out of a list on either models, folder or database tables. Printing a summary even in logs which did a "diff" sort of thing between 'task-set' and 'task-completed' (referring to attaching models or updating schema as tasks here as 'tasks').
  • Provide access to Postgres Database in Sydney datacentre for Australia.
  • Clearer documentation around setting up a secure (referring to SSL and certificate setup here) server on eg, chubby1.au-sydney.mybluemix.net.
  • Allow a ramp in pricing onto the Blockchains. We will not be able to afford it until quite a few years into production, even if we launch successfully.
Read full review
Usability
It is very easy to get started with AWS Lambda and create your first function. The user interface makes it easy to add AWS services to be inputs or outputs to the function, meaning it can be configured in many different ways for different needs. This makes it ideal for various scenarios in AWS.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
As this is a product where a great part of errors can be at the source code level, AWS support team doesn't dive that further. I mean they don't evaluate problems more complex related to your code, [which] is totally understandable, but this make[s] debug process more tough and painful.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
It's fine, it works as the others would have, except EC2. We are migrating back to EC2 for dedicated compute because we have scaled to a point where we have consistent traffic. The tradeoff of maintaining infrastructure in-house outweighs the benefits of moving quickly through our roadmap.
Read full review
IBM Cloud Foundry is our first choice industry-standard platform as a service (PaaS) which has always provided us with quicker, simpler, and more consistent ways for the deployment of the cloud-native applications which in result saved us lots of time and money.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • We have simplified log fiie ingestion using Lambda functions. The return has been less time worrying about getting logs from source to ingestion; one the process is in place the team is nearly 100% hands off.
  • We have begun taking a more API focused approach by using API Gateway as the interface to business processes and Lambda as the back end compute. Moving away from server based back ends places us on a path to reducing overall spend in compute costs.
  • Lambda functions allow us to easily interface with third party services through APIs. This simplifies access management since the function can be granted permissions and access to the function can be gated with API keys and other authentication methods.
Read full review
  • This was the founding solution used to allow us to move in to and test out a cloud pipeline. This is what paved the way for a full production cloud solution to be possible.
  • Having Cloud Foundry at the base of our development and sandpit environment, segregated away from our standard on premise solution has moved away red tape and ensured an agile way forward.
Read full review
ScreenShots