Azure Container Apps vs. IBM Cloud Functions

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure Container Apps
Score 6.6 out of 10
N/A
Azure Container Apps, part of the Azure suite of products from Microsoft, is a service used to deploy containerized apps without managing complex infrastructure. Users can write code using a preferred programming language or framework, and build microservices with full support for Distributed Application Runtime (Dapr). Scale dynamically based on HTTP traffic or events powered by Kubernetes Event-Driven Autoscaling (KEDA).N/A
IBM Cloud Functions
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
IBM 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 Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Editions & Modules
vCPU (seconds)
active usage $0.000024 and idle usage $0.000003
per second 180,000 vCPU-seconds free grant per month
Memory (GiB-Seconds)
active usage $0.000003 and idle usage $0.000003
per second 360,000 GiB-seconds free grant per month
Basic Cloud Functions Rate
$0.00017
per second of execution
API Gateway Rate
Free
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Considered Both Products
Azure Container Apps
Chose Azure Container Apps
Each one has the benefits and drawback. While it is not easy to compare apple for apple. I definitely like that it can be integrated with our system to ensure that we are running at 100% capacity. It is a vision to be 100% cloud base and we have been able to achieve this …
Chose Azure Container Apps
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)
IBM Cloud Functions
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
AWS Lambda is 100 times more robust than IBM cloud functions. They essentially do the same thing, but AWS works. AWS is stable. we have had epic failures with cloud functions. Support was horrible. We literally had an open ticket with them for 2 months and it literally went …
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
IBM Cloud Functions are native to IBM Cloud and are easy to integrate into other IBM Cloud applications.
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
  • 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
Chose IBM Cloud Functions
AWS Lambda might be more suited for larger scaled companies looking to consistently access similar features at a higher volume/frequency, but for smaller teams with a limited budget, IBM's Cloud Functions are a competitive choice
Features
Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Azure Container Apps
5.3
Ratings
40% below category average
IBM Cloud Functions
-
Ratings
Ease of building user interfaces5.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform management overhead6.10 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability5.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control4.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration4.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment creation4.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment replication4.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification5.60 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue recovery4.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes5.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Small Businesses
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.7 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
Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
6.6
(0 ratings)
3.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
2.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure Container AppsIBM Cloud Functions
Likelihood to Recommend
Azure Container Apps is a welcome addition for sure. Based on my experience, this has enabled us to move fully to the cloud and managed everywhere in one spot and on the go. We can scale it to our end as much as we would like. It can be assess anywhere and it is fully secure
Read full review
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
  • Cloud-native where it can be assess anywhere
  • Enhance security
  • Open source
Read full review
  • Validate raw data files - check the validity of raw data input to the system, to make sure we analyze only the relevant data. The raw data stream rate is hard to be predicted, since it depends on real world activities.
  • Analyze raw data - analyzing of valid raw data, described above.
  • Insert data to LOCAL data base.
Read full review
Cons
  • The deployment process is complicated
  • Learning of Azure cli (command-line interface) for deployment is required
  • Not compatible with other standard CI/CD tools
Read full review
  • 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
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
I would rather use AKS for my critical applications. The fact that the deployment process is dependent on as cli makes it hard for us to integrate with our standard CI/CD tools
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
Azure Container Apps are fantastic and it is a game changer. I would recommend it to anyone considering it. As you can scale it to what you would like and it is fully cloud native with better security. It is a no brainier not to consider it. I do believe that with further improve it will become even more attractive
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Each one has the benefits and drawback. While it is not easy to compare apple for apple. I definitely like that it can be integrated with our system to ensure that we are running at 100% capacity. It is a vision to be 100% cloud base and we have been able to achieve this through Azure Container Apps
Read full review
AWS Lambda is 100 times more robust than IBM cloud functions. They essentially do the same thing, but AWS works. AWS is stable. we have had epic failures with cloud functions. Support was horrible. We literally had an open ticket with them for 2 months and it literally went nowhere. They said it could do 100 calls a minute. We proved over and over that we couldn't get above 20 without getting failures. They had NO explanation whatsoever. The ticket got closed because we were tired of asking them questions and getting no understandable or usable response.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • As it is cloud native, we no longer required to have onsite prem
  • Reducing both from an energy and security perspective
  • It is worth the investment as we have saved about 10% of our ICT cost
Read full review
  • Definitely has positive impact due to the pay only when used feature
  • Lightweight cloud services help with scaling without high investment in infrastructure
Read full review
ScreenShots