We performed a comparison between Apache NiFi and AWS Lambda based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Compute Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature has been the range of clients and the range of connectors that we could use."
"Apache NiFi is user-friendly. Its most valuable features for handling large volumes of data include its multitude of integrated endpoints and clients and the ability to create cron jobs to run tasks at regular intervals."
"Visually, this is a good product."
"The most valuable features of this solution are ease of use and implementation."
"The initial setup is very easy. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, where one point is difficult, and ten points are easy."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"We can integrate the tool with other applications easily."
"It's an automated flow, where you can build a flow from source to destination, then do the transformation in between."
"Lambda being serverless is a great feature that is appropriate for our use cases."
"I like that it's easy to use and maintain. Lambda is good and supports different platforms, so you don't need to worry about language or maintenance."
"The utilization of containers is particularly beneficial in overcoming the size limitations imposed on Lambda functions which not only allows us to work around these constraints but also contributes to the improvement and maintenance of our code."
"The solution integrates well with API gateways and S3 events via its AWS ecosystem."
"The most valuable feature is that there is no need to implement it in a server because it is a service."
"The solution works for small applications. It is a serverless tool that is quick to spin up. We needn’t consider anything in the bag."
"The ability to scale up and down very quickly helps because we can maintain our system performance and business at a low cost."
"The support from AWS Lambda is very good, they are responsive."
"I think the UI interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"The overall stability of this solution could be improved. In a future release, we would like to have access to more features that could be used in a parallel way. This would provide more freedom with processing."
"The tool should incorporate more tutorials for advanced use cases. It has tutorials for simple use cases."
"There are some claims that NiFi is cloud-native but we have tested it, and it's not."
"There should be a better way to integrate a development environment with local tools."
"We run many jobs, and there are already large tables. When we do not control NiFi on time, all reports fail for the day. So it's pretty slow to control, and it has to be improved."
"More features must be added to the product."
"There is room for improvement in integration with SSO. For example, NiFi does not have any integration with SSO. And if I want to give some kind of rollback access control across the organization. That is not possible."
"My opinion is that the integration could be improved in this solution. We have had some difficulties integrating the EC2 module, but we found a solution for that by ourselves."
"There are other similar solutions, such as Google Cloud Platform or Microsoft Azure. They might be better for small tasks."
"What could be improved in AWS Lambda is a tricky question because I base the area for improvement on a specific matrix, for example, latency, so I'm still determining if I can be the judge on that. However, room for improvement could be when you're using AWS Lambda as a backend, it can be challenging to use it for monitoring. Monitoring is critical in development, and I don't have much expertise in the area, but you can use other services such as Xray. I found that monitoring on AWS Lambda is a challenge. The tool needs better monitoring. Another area for improvement in AWS Lambda is the cold start, where it takes some time to invoke a function the first time, but after that, invoking it becomes swift. Still, there's room for improvement in that AWS Lambda process. In the next release of AWS Lambda, I'd like AWS to improve monitoring so that I can monitor codes better."
"I would like to see some better integration with other providers, like Cohesity, Druva, and others. I also think the Lambda interface could be better."
"I wish to see better execution time in the next release."
"We need to invest time in learning the tool's language variant. We have encountered instances of downtime as well."
"The security needs to be improved."
"Lambda could be improved in the sense that some of the things done with Lambda function take some time. So the performance could be better and faster."
Apache NiFi is ranked 8th in Compute Service with 11 reviews while AWS Lambda is ranked 1st in Compute Service with 70 reviews. Apache NiFi is rated 7.8, while AWS Lambda is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Apache NiFi writes "Allows the creation and use of custom functions to achieve desired functionality but limitation in handling monthly transactions due to a lack of partitioning for dates". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AWS Lambda writes "An easily scalable solution with a variety of use cases and valuable event-based triggers". Apache NiFi is most compared with Google Cloud Dataflow, Apache Spark, Azure Stream Analytics, Apache Storm and AWS Fargate, whereas AWS Lambda is most compared with AWS Batch, Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling, Apache Spark, AWS Fargate and Google Cloud Dataflow. See our AWS Lambda vs. Apache NiFi report.
See our list of best Compute Service vendors.
We monitor all Compute Service reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.