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.

The solution follows a pay-as-you-go licensing model, which results in cost savings. 

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.

I'm not aware of the exact pricing. I don't handle any licensing. 

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.

We only need to pay for the compute time our code consumes. The solution does not cost much.

The pricing is on-demand and based on runs or times that are billed out monthly. 

For example, one million requests might cost 20 cents. 

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 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.

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. 

The solution is fairly reasonable, and, as it doesn't require any infrastructure, can save a company a lot of money simply by being on the cloud.

We bought a license from AWS that renews yearly.

AWS Lambda cost is pretty decent. 

AWS Lambda license is paid on a monthly basis.

I rate the price of AWS Lambda a four out of five.

The solution's price is average, and I rate it as a five for pricing.

AWS Lambda is cost-effective, with a minimal maintenance cost.

The price is expensive and is based on usage. The more users you have the higher the cost.

Price-wise, AWS Lambda is very cheap. It's not free, but it's not that expensive.

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.    

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 price of the solution is reasonable and it is a pay-per-use model. It is very good for cost optimization.

For licensing, we pay a yearly subscription. 

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.

We don't need to pay for licensing to use Lambda. 

We don't need to worry about monthly or yearly licenses. 

The solution is very cost-efficient.

AWS Lambda's cloud version isn't expensive, and I'd rate its pricing as five out of five.

The cost of AWS Lambda is based on runtime.

AWS is slightly more expensive than Azure. But from a maturity perspective, AWS is way more ahead than Azure. 

I pay for a monthly license. The licensing options will depend on the users. There's a monthly option and a yearly option. 

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.

Licensing is on a monthly subscription model and is usage-based. 

The price in general could always be better.

The fees are volume-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. On a scale of one to five, with one being very expensive and five being competitive, I would rate Lambda a four. 

The solution is pay as you go.

Its pricing is on the higher side.

AWS Lambda's price is reasonable.

AWS Lambda is inexpensive.

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.

This is a product that is pay-per-use, as opposed to a licensing fee. It could be cheaper.

There are no costs in addition to the standard pay-per-use fees.

For automation tests, it does not affect too much. 

Our Ops are all AWS experts.

The price of AWS Lambda is priced very low.