AWS Lambda offers a highly favorable pricing model, especially for smaller applications or low-traffic workloads. The first one million requests per month are free, which provides significant cost savings for startups or testing phases. After that, the pricing is based on the number of requests and the duration of function execution, which is quite cost-effective compared to traditional server-based solutions. The pay-per-use model means you only pay for what you use, eliminating the need for upfront costs or long-term commitments. However, it’s important to consider that while the costs are low, high-frequency invocations or long-running processes can add up, so it's essential to monitor usage to optimize spending.
AWS Lambda is cost-effective and flexible, particularly suitable for small applications. I am using the service within a free tier account, which influences the pricing experience.
Managed Services Engineer - AWS / UC & WAN at Digital Island
Real User
Top 5
Oct 21, 2024
AWS Lambda is very cost-effective. It allows for one hundred thousand requests for free per month, and subsequent requests incur a very low cost per trigger.
AWS Lambda is a cheap solution. The solution has a generic pricing before being triggered. After triggering, we need to pay the bill based on how much time the server runs.
The pricing varies based on the specific solution you're implementing, and in comparison to the value it provides, the overall cost is reasonable. When used appropriately for its intended purpose, the price is relatively low. However, if Lambda is employed outside its intended scope, the cost can escalate exponentially. I would rate it four out of ten.
Principal Solution Architect at a construction company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Jul 19, 2023
I think the price is okay. However, if they add more functionality, they can have better prices. In fact, they should have better and more flexible packages for clients who have greater consumption of Lambda.
Solution & Integration Architect - AWS Cloud & Modernization at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Dec 23, 2022
Lambda is an affordable solution. They offer free requests every month and charge per the compute time. If you are working in a big organization, usually AWS offer a savings plan where you get approximately 70% discount on pricing. If one is very affordable and ten is expensive, I would rate this solution a two out of ten. Costing is per account. Production will involve a higher cost.
Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Dec 9, 2022
Licensing costs are reasonable even though you have to pay for the computation and for the volume of data. Once the work is done, the storage is freed up so you only get charged for the instance.
Solution Architect, DevOps Engineer at sonne technology
Real User
Nov 7, 2022
The solution is part of the AWS subscription model that is paid annually. There is no charge for monthly usage. There are many calculation criteria for AWS services or licenses. It is difficult to say whether the solution reasonably priced or expensive. Each company weighs price against the benefits and efficiencies provided by the solution.
There's two charges for this solution. There's the charge for how many times you call a Lambda function, which is 20 cents for every million function calls. Then there's also the size and amount of time that the Lambda function runs, which is measured as 0.0000166667 dollars. It's a fraction of a penny for every gigabyte second. A gigabyte, if you ran it for like a million seconds, would cost one dollar. It computes by the cycle, and it's very cheap.
President at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jul 21, 2022
You're not paying for a server if you're not using it, which is another reason I like it. So, you're not paying if you're not using it. It scales, and you're charged based on usage. It all depends on the use case. Some can be extremely inexpensive if you have very low volume transaction rates. That way, you don't have to fire up and absorb the cost of the servers just sitting there waiting for a transaction to come through. You're only paying when you use it. So, depending upon the use model, Lambda could be highly efficient relative to an EC2 solution. You don't have to have things reallocated.
Service Deliery Manager at a comms service provider with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 10
Jul 10, 2022
The price of the solution is reasonable. On a scale of one to five, with one being very expensive and five being competitive, I would rate Lambda a four.
AWS Developer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Feb 16, 2022
AWS Lambda is a very inexpensive solution. They charge for the number of times we run it. If you run AWS Lambda for one time, they charge around 50 cents or 25 cents for the use. I don't know the exact price, but it's less than a dollar.
Consultant at a educational organization with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jul 11, 2021
If you need to deploy it to a license, the first server you use you need to pay for a license. If you're going to open-source, there are no licenses required.
When you try some services, with Amazon, the first phase is okay. When we continued with more workloads placed on Amazon, we needed to take into account the cost, as the cost to the firm becomes more and more. It can get expensive if you aren't careful.
AWS Lambda is a compute service that lets you run code without provisioning or managing servers. AWS Lambda executes your code only when needed and scales automatically, from a few requests per day to thousands per second. You pay only for the compute time you consume - there is no charge when your code is not running. With AWS Lambda, you can run code for virtually any type of application or backend service - all with zero administration. AWS Lambda runs your code on a high-availability...
The pricing of AWS Lambda is reasonable. It's beneficial and cost-effective for users regardless of the number of instances used.
AWS Lambda is cheaper compared to running an instance continuously. You only pay for what you use, making it cost-effective.
AWS Lambda offers a highly favorable pricing model, especially for smaller applications or low-traffic workloads. The first one million requests per month are free, which provides significant cost savings for startups or testing phases. After that, the pricing is based on the number of requests and the duration of function execution, which is quite cost-effective compared to traditional server-based solutions. The pay-per-use model means you only pay for what you use, eliminating the need for upfront costs or long-term commitments. However, it’s important to consider that while the costs are low, high-frequency invocations or long-running processes can add up, so it's essential to monitor usage to optimize spending.
AWS Lambda is cost-effective and flexible, particularly suitable for small applications. I am using the service within a free tier account, which influences the pricing experience.
AWS Lambda is very cost-effective. It allows for one hundred thousand requests for free per month, and subsequent requests incur a very low cost per trigger.
The solution is free of cost for the first year, and after that, it becomes expensive.
It's not expensive, it is okay when it comes to licensing. It costs maybe less than $10 per month in my use case.
We only need to pay for the compute time our code consumes. The solution does not cost much.
AWS Lambda is a cheap solution. The solution has a generic pricing before being triggered. After triggering, we need to pay the bill based on how much time the server runs.
The pricing varies based on the specific solution you're implementing, and in comparison to the value it provides, the overall cost is reasonable. When used appropriately for its intended purpose, the price is relatively low. However, if Lambda is employed outside its intended scope, the cost can escalate exponentially. I would rate it four out of ten.
I think the price is okay. However, if they add more functionality, they can have better prices. In fact, they should have better and more flexible packages for clients who have greater consumption of Lambda.
AWS Lambda is cheap.
I would rate the tool’s pricing a nine out of ten. The solution’s pricing works on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Price-wise, AWS Lambda is a five out of ten.
The price is expensive and is based on usage. The more users you have the higher the cost.
Lambda is an affordable solution. They offer free requests every month and charge per the compute time. If you are working in a big organization, usually AWS offer a savings plan where you get approximately 70% discount on pricing. If one is very affordable and ten is expensive, I would rate this solution a two out of ten. Costing is per account. Production will involve a higher cost.
The solution is very expensive.
Licensing costs are reasonable even though you have to pay for the computation and for the volume of data. Once the work is done, the storage is freed up so you only get charged for the instance.
The solution is part of the AWS subscription model that is paid annually. There is no charge for monthly usage. There are many calculation criteria for AWS services or licenses. It is difficult to say whether the solution reasonably priced or expensive. Each company weighs price against the benefits and efficiencies provided by the solution.
AWS Lambda's cloud version isn't expensive, and I'd rate its pricing as five out of five.
Price-wise, AWS Lambda is very cheap. It's not free, but it's not that expensive.
There's two charges for this solution. There's the charge for how many times you call a Lambda function, which is 20 cents for every million function calls. Then there's also the size and amount of time that the Lambda function runs, which is measured as 0.0000166667 dollars. It's a fraction of a penny for every gigabyte second. A gigabyte, if you ran it for like a million seconds, would cost one dollar. It computes by the cycle, and it's very cheap.
I'm not aware of the exact pricing. I don't handle any licensing.
You're not paying for a server if you're not using it, which is another reason I like it. So, you're not paying if you're not using it. It scales, and you're charged based on usage. It all depends on the use case. Some can be extremely inexpensive if you have very low volume transaction rates. That way, you don't have to fire up and absorb the cost of the servers just sitting there waiting for a transaction to come through. You're only paying when you use it. So, depending upon the use model, Lambda could be highly efficient relative to an EC2 solution. You don't have to have things reallocated.
The price of the solution is reasonable. On a scale of one to five, with one being very expensive and five being competitive, I would rate Lambda a four.
The cost is based on the number of Lambdas used if I'm not mistaken. It's only a usage charge, not a license charge.
AWS Lambda is a very inexpensive solution. They charge for the number of times we run it. If you run AWS Lambda for one time, they charge around 50 cents or 25 cents for the use. I don't know the exact price, but it's less than a dollar.
The price of AWS Lambda is priced very low.
For licensing, we pay a yearly subscription.
The solution is pay as you go.
I pay for a monthly license. The licensing options will depend on the users. There's a monthly option and a yearly option.
Licensing is on a monthly subscription model and is usage-based.
If you need to deploy it to a license, the first server you use you need to pay for a license. If you're going to open-source, there are no licenses required.
The price of the solution is reasonable and it is a pay-per-use model. It is very good for cost optimization.
The solution is very cost-efficient.
Its pricing is on the higher side.
When you try some services, with Amazon, the first phase is okay. When we continued with more workloads placed on Amazon, we needed to take into account the cost, as the cost to the firm becomes more and more. It can get expensive if you aren't careful.
AWS is slightly more expensive than Azure. But from a maturity perspective, AWS is way more ahead than Azure.