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. Application & Data
  3. Serverless
  4. Serverless Task Processing
  5. Fission vs Google Cloud Functions

Fission vs Google Cloud Functions

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Fission
Fission
Stacks27
Followers81
Votes3
GitHub Stars8.8K
Forks788
Google Cloud Functions
Google Cloud Functions
Stacks478
Followers479
Votes25

Fission vs Google Cloud Functions: What are the differences?

# Introduction

Key differences between Fission and Google Cloud Functions.

1. **Programming Language Support**: Fission supports multiple programming languages like Node.js, Python, Go, while Google Cloud Functions primarily supports Node.js with limited support for Python and Go. This difference in language support can influence developers' language preferences when choosing a serverless platform.
  
2. **Deployment Flexibility**: Fission allows deployment on any Kubernetes cluster, providing more deployment flexibility compared to Google Cloud Functions, which is limited to running on Google Cloud. This flexibility in deployment options can be advantageous for organizations with heterogeneous cloud environments or specific Kubernetes preferences.
  
3. **Scaling Behavior**: Fission can auto-scale based on user-defined metrics, adjusting resources dynamically, whereas Google Cloud Functions have automatic scaling capabilities but with limited configuration options. The scalability flexibility offered by Fission allows developers to fine-tune scaling behavior according to their application's specific needs.
  
4. **Pricing Model**: Fission is an open-source platform, allowing users to run serverless functions without incurring platform-specific fees. In contrast, Google Cloud Functions follows a pay-as-you-go pricing model, where users are charged based on the number of invocations, execution time, and resource usage. The difference in pricing models can influence cost management strategies for organizations utilizing serverless technologies.
  
5. **Integration Capabilities**: Fission provides seamless integration with external services through triggers and event bindings, facilitating easy interaction with various systems. Google Cloud Functions also offer integrations with Google Cloud services, providing native integration options within the Google Cloud ecosystem. The different integration capabilities can impact the ease of developing and managing serverless applications that rely on external services.
  
6. **Vendor Lock-in Concerns**: Fission, being an open-source platform, mitigates vendor lock-in concerns by providing the flexibility to deploy functions on any Kubernetes cluster. On the other hand, Google Cloud Functions are tightly integrated with Google Cloud services, potentially creating vendor lock-in challenges for organizations looking to leverage multiple cloud providers. The difference in vendor lock-in implications can influence long-term cloud strategy decisions for businesses utilizing serverless architectures.

# In Summary, Fission and Google Cloud Functions differ in terms of programming language support, deployment flexibility, scaling behavior, pricing model, integration capabilities, and vendor lock-in concerns.

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 Fission, Google Cloud Functions

Clifford
Clifford

Software Engineer at Bidvest Advisory Services

Mar 28, 2020

Decided

Run cloud service containers instead of cloud-native services

  • Running containers means that your microservices are not "cooked" into a cloud provider's architecture.
  • Moving from one cloud to the next means that you simply spin up new instances of your containers in the new cloud using that cloud's container service.
  • Start redirecting your traffic to the new resources.
  • Turn off the containers in the cloud you migrated from.
71.3k views71.3k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Fission
Fission
Google Cloud Functions
Google Cloud Functions

Write short-lived functions in any language, and map them to HTTP requests (or other event triggers). Deploy functions instantly with one command. There are no containers to build, and no Docker registries to manage.

Construct applications from bite-sized business logic billed to the nearest 100 milliseconds, only while your code is running

Statistics
GitHub Stars
8.8K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
788
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
27
Stacks
478
Followers
81
Followers
479
Votes
3
Votes
25
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 1
    Open source
  • 1
    Portability
  • 1
    Any language
Pros
  • 7
    Serverless Applications
  • 5
    Its not AWS
  • 4
    Simplicity
  • 3
    Free Tiers and Trainging
  • 2
    Simple config with GitLab CI/CD
Cons
  • 1
    Node.js only
  • 0
    Blaze, pay as you go
  • 0
    Typescript Support
Integrations
Kubernetes
Kubernetes
Docker
Docker
Firebase
Firebase
Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage
Stackdriver
Stackdriver

What are some alternatives to Fission, Google Cloud Functions?

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.

Azure Functions

Azure Functions

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.

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.

Serverless

Serverless

Build applications comprised of microservices that run in response to events, auto-scale for you, and only charge you when they run. This lowers the total cost of maintaining your apps, enabling you to build more logic, faster. The Framework uses new event-driven compute services, like AWS Lambda, Google CloudFunctions, and more.

Knative

Knative

Knative provides a set of middleware components that are essential to build modern, source-centric, and container-based applications that can run anywhere: on premises, in the cloud, or even in a third-party data center

OpenFaaS

OpenFaaS

Serverless Functions Made Simple for Docker and Kubernetes

Nuclio

Nuclio

nuclio is portable across IoT devices, laptops, on-premises datacenters and cloud deployments, eliminating cloud lock-ins and enabling hybrid solutions.

Apache OpenWhisk

Apache OpenWhisk

OpenWhisk is an open source serverless platform. It is enterprise grade and accessible to all developers thanks to its superior programming model and tooling. It powers IBM Cloud Functions, Adobe I/O Runtime, Naver, Nimbella among others.

Cloud Functions for Firebase

Cloud Functions for Firebase

Cloud Functions for Firebase lets you create functions that are triggered by Firebase products, such as changes to data in the Realtime Database, uploads to Cloud Storage, new user sign ups via Authentication, and conversion events in Analytics.

AWS Batch

AWS Batch

It enables developers, scientists, and engineers to easily and efficiently run hundreds of thousands of batch computing jobs on AWS. It dynamically provisions the optimal quantity and type of compute resources (e.g., CPU or memory optimized instances) based on the volume and specific resource requirements of the batch jobs submitted.

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