We performed a comparison between Apache NiFi and AWS Batch 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."We can integrate the tool with other applications easily."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"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."
"Visually, this is a good product."
"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."
"The most valuable feature has been the range of clients and the range of connectors that we could use."
"The user interface is good and makes it easy to design very popular workflows."
"The most valuable features of this solution are ease of use and implementation."
"AWS Batch manages the execution of computing workload, including job scheduling, provisioning, and scaling."
"There is one other feature in confirmation or call confirmation where you can have templates of what you want to do and just modify those to customize it to your needs. And these templates basically make it a lot easier for you to get started."
"We can easily integrate AWS container images into the product."
"AWS Batch's deployment was easy."
"There should be a better way to integrate a development environment with local tools."
"More features must be added to the product."
"There are some claims that NiFi is cloud-native but we have tested it, and it's not."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The use case templates could be more precise to typical business needs."
"When we run a lot of batch jobs, the UI must show the history."
"AWS Batch needs to improve its documentation."
"The main drawback to using AWS Batch would be the cost. It will be more expensive in some cases than using an HPC. It's more amenable to cases where you have spot requirements."
"The solution should include better and seamless integration with other AWS services, like Amazon S3 data storage and EC2 compute resources."
Apache NiFi is ranked 8th in Compute Service with 11 reviews while AWS Batch is ranked 4th in Compute Service with 4 reviews. Apache NiFi is rated 7.8, while AWS Batch is rated 9.0. 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 Batch writes "User-friendly, good customization and offers exceptional scalability, allowing users to run jobs ranging from 32 cores to over 2,000 cores". Apache NiFi is most compared with Google Cloud Dataflow, AWS Lambda, Apache Spark, Azure Stream Analytics and IBM Streams, whereas AWS Batch is most compared with AWS Lambda, Apache Spark, AWS Fargate and Oracle Compute Cloud Service. See our AWS Batch 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.