Azure Functions vs Fission: What are the differences?

Introduction

Azure Functions and Fission are both serverless computing platforms that allow developers to build and run applications without the need to manage infrastructure. While they share similarities, there are key differences between Azure Functions and Fission that set them apart from each other. In this article, we will explore these differences in detail.

1. Programming Language Support: Azure Functions supports a wide range of programming languages including C#, JavaScript, Python, PowerShell, and Java, among others, giving developers the flexibility to choose the language they are most comfortable with. On the other hand, Fission currently supports only Node.js and Golang, significantly limiting the language options available to developers.

2. Scaling Model: Azure Functions automatically scales based on the demand, allowing developers to handle high-traffic scenarios without worrying about infrastructure provisioning. It leverages the Azure platform to provide seamless scaling capabilities. Fission, on the other hand, relies on Kubernetes for scaling. This means that developers using Fission need to set up and manage a Kubernetes cluster for autoscaling to work efficiently.

3. Supported Cloud Providers: Azure Functions is a cloud computing service offered by Microsoft that is tightly integrated with the Azure ecosystem. It provides a seamless experience for developers who are already using Azure services. Fission, on the other hand, is cloud-agnostic and can be deployed on any cloud provider that supports Kubernetes. This allows developers to have more flexibility in choosing the cloud provider that suits their specific requirements.

4. Event Triggers: Azure Functions provides a wide range of event triggers such as HTTP, timer, Azure Cosmos DB, Azure Blob storage, and Azure Event Grid, among others. This enables developers to easily build event-driven applications. Fission, on the other hand, primarily supports HTTP triggers. While it is possible to create custom triggers in Fission, the supported triggers out-of-the-box are limited compared to Azure Functions.

5. Developer Experience: Azure Functions provides a comprehensive development environment with tooling support in popular integrated development environments (IDEs) such as Visual Studio and Visual Studio Code. It also offers rich debugging capabilities, making it easier for developers to write, test, and troubleshoot their functions. Fission, on the other hand, has a more minimalistic approach and relies on a command-line interface (CLI) for development and deployment tasks. While this provides a lightweight and flexible experience, it may lack some of the advanced features provided by Azure Functions.

6. Pricing Model: Azure Functions offers both a consumption-based pricing model and a dedicated pricing model. With the consumption-based model, developers only pay for the compute resources used during function executions. Fission, on the other hand, follows a purely consumption-based pricing model, which means that developers only pay for the resources consumed by their functions. This can be advantageous for developers with sporadic workloads or who are looking for cost-effective serverless computing options.

In summary, Azure Functions provides a wider range of programming language support, seamless scaling capabilities, tight integration with the Azure ecosystem, extensive event trigger options, comprehensive development environment, and flexible pricing models. Fission, on the other hand, has a more limited language support, requires Kubernetes for efficient scaling, offers cloud-agnostic deployment options, has fewer built-in event trigger options, relies on a CLI for development and deployment, and follows a purely consumption-based pricing model.