StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Utilities
  3. Background Jobs
  4. Message Queue
  5. Azure Functions vs Celery

Azure Functions vs Celery

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Celery
Celery
Stacks1.7K
Followers1.6K
Votes280
GitHub Stars27.5K
Forks4.9K
Azure Functions
Azure Functions
Stacks785
Followers705
Votes62

Azure Functions vs Celery: What are the differences?

Introduction

Azure Functions and Celery are both popular choices for building distributed applications and implementing task scheduling. However, there are several key differences between them that make them suitable for different use cases.

  1. Scaling Model: Azure Functions provide automatic scaling and provisioning of resources based on demand. It allows developers to focus on writing code without worrying about infrastructure management. On the other hand, Celery requires manual configuration of resources and scaling based on the specific requirements of the application.

  2. Compatibility: Azure Functions are a cloud-based serverless computing solution, specifically designed for Microsoft Azure. It integrates well with other Azure services and provides seamless connectivity with various data sources. Celery, on the other hand, is a distributed task queue framework for Python and can be used with different message brokers such as RabbitMQ, Redis, or Amazon SQS.

  3. Language Support: Azure Functions support multiple programming languages including C#, JavaScript, Java, PowerShell, and Python. This allows developers to choose the language they are most comfortable with. Celery, as mentioned earlier, is primarily for Python applications and provides a Python-specific API for task management.

  4. Development Environment: Azure Functions can be developed and tested locally using the Azure Functions Core Tools, which provide a local development environment. Celery also supports local development and testing, but it requires setting up the necessary infrastructure components, such as message brokers, locally.

  5. Function Triggers: Azure Functions provide a wide range of triggers, such as HTTP request, timer, Azure Storage, Service Bus, and Event Grid, that can invoke the function. This allows developers to create serverless applications with event-driven architectures. Celery, on the other hand, relies on the message broker to trigger tasks or functions.

  6. Managed Service vs Framework: Azure Functions is a fully managed service provided by Microsoft Azure, which means the infrastructure and management overhead are handled by Azure. Celery, on the other hand, is a framework that needs to be set up and managed by the developers themselves, including infrastructure provisioning and monitoring.

In summary, Azure Functions provide automatic scaling, seamless integration with Azure services, support for multiple programming languages, and a fully managed serverless computing platform. On the other hand, Celery offers more flexibility in terms of choice of message broker, extensive task queue management for Python applications, and the ability to set up and manage the entire infrastructure independently.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Celery, Azure Functions

Mark
Mark

Nov 2, 2020

Needs adviceonMicrosoft AzureMicrosoft Azure

Need advice on what platform, systems and tools to use.

Evaluating whether to start a new digital business for which we will need to build a website that handles all traffic. Website only right now. May add smartphone apps later. No desktop app will ever be added. Website to serve various countries and languages. B2B and B2C type customers. Need to handle heavy traffic, be low cost, and scale well.

We are open to either build it on AWS or on Microsoft Azure.

Apologies if I'm leaving out some info. My first post. :) Thanks in advance!

133k views133k
Comments
Shantha
Shantha

Sep 30, 2020

Needs adviceonRabbitMQRabbitMQCeleryCeleryMongoDBMongoDB

I am just a beginner at these two technologies.

Problem statement: I am getting lakh of users from the sequel server for whom I need to create caches in MongoDB by making different REST API requests.

Here these users can be treated as messages. Each REST API request is a task.

I am confused about whether I should go for RabbitMQ alone or Celery.

If I have to go with RabbitMQ, I prefer to use python with Pika module. But the challenge with Pika is, it is not thread-safe. So I am not finding a way to execute a lakh of API requests in parallel using multiple threads using Pika.

If I have to go with Celery, I don't know how I can achieve better scalability in executing these API requests in parallel.

334k views334k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Celery
Celery
Azure Functions
Azure Functions

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

Azure Functions is an event driven, compute-on-demand experience that extends the existing Azure application platform with capabilities to implement code triggered by events occurring in virtually any Azure or 3rd party service as well as on-premises systems.

-
Easily schedule event-driven tasks across services;Expose Functions as HTTP API endpoints;Scale Functions based on customer demand;Develop how you want, using a browser-based UI or existing tools;Get continuous deployment, remote debugging, and authentication out of the box
Statistics
GitHub Stars
27.5K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
4.9K
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
1.7K
Stacks
785
Followers
1.6K
Followers
705
Votes
280
Votes
62
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 99
    Task queue
  • 63
    Python integration
  • 40
    Django integration
  • 30
    Scheduled Task
  • 19
    Publish/subsribe
Cons
  • 4
    Sometimes loses tasks
  • 1
    Depends on broker
Pros
  • 14
    Pay only when invoked
  • 11
    Great developer experience for C#
  • 9
    Multiple languages supported
  • 7
    Great debugging support
  • 5
    Can be used as lightweight https service
Cons
  • 1
    Not suited for long-running applications
  • 1
    No persistent (writable) file system available
  • 1
    Sporadic server & language runtime issues
  • 1
    Poor support for Linux environments
Integrations
No integrations available
Azure DevOps
Azure DevOps
Java
Java
Bitbucket
Bitbucket
Node.js
Node.js
Microsoft Azure
Microsoft Azure
GitHub
GitHub
Visual Studio Code
Visual Studio Code
JavaScript
JavaScript
Azure Cosmos DB
Azure Cosmos DB
C#
C#

What are some alternatives to Celery, Azure Functions?

Kafka

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

AWS Lambda

AWS Lambda

AWS Lambda is a compute service that runs your code in response to events and automatically manages the underlying compute resources for you. You can use AWS Lambda to extend other AWS services with custom logic, or create your own back-end services that operate at AWS scale, performance, and security.

Amazon SQS

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

ZeroMQ

ZeroMQ

The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more.

Apache NiFi

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Google Cloud Run

Google Cloud Run

A managed compute platform that enables you to run stateless containers that are invocable via HTTP requests. It's serverless by abstracting away all infrastructure management.

Gearman

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase