I feel the point of the comparison was answering the question "Might it be feasible to replace our current infrastructure¹ with an arm based solution², and at

I feel the point of the comparison was answering the question "Might it be feasible to replace our current infrastructure¹ with an arm based solution², and at the same time: Can we benefit from more cores, lower clock speeds" 1: The article uses their current dev system - there's no reason to buy a shiny new setup if that dev system works fine today and is 'fast enough' 2: The article explicitly mentions upcoming arm8 server boards but uses RPi2s as a general (and low) approximation for 'cheap arm performance' and to test their setup in a multi-node environment (vs. 'one single vm') I think the article explains quite well what it wanted to do and doesn't claim 'arm is better' or anything like that. For their workload, using Erlang/OTP and their real world application, a multi-node arm-based architecture might be feasible.