3 ms·

Heroku would be the easiest to use, and it has fixed costs attached (unless you use autoscaling, which scales worker based on latency.) AWS AppRunner (built on

Heroku would be the easiest to use, and it has fixed costs attached (unless you use autoscaling, which scales worker based on latency.) AWS AppRunner (built on Fargate technology) would be another option, but using AWS is definitely more involved than Heroku. With the exception of network traffic which is pay-as-yo-go, you can calculate max pricing for CPU/memory depending on the app configuration. I use both of them at $dayjob. Unless there are good reasons to choose AWS, I would always recommend to start with Heroku.

tedyoung 5y ago
Agree that Heroku, while possibly more expensive, is the most straightforward to get going and maintain over time. You're paying them to figure out all the VM/container/database/etc. stuff, and that's what you want. I've had several apps running pretty much untouched for years on Heroku (other than updating libraries and the Java runtime). Depending on the language, there may be other services that work just as well, but AWS/Google Cloud/Azure are either more expensive or will require more time to setup and maintain.