Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CloudFormation vs Azure Resource Manager: What are the differences?
This article will compare AWS CloudFormation and Azure Resource Manager, two popular cloud infrastructure automation services provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure respectively. Both services allow users to define and provision cloud resources using a declarative template, but they have some key differences.
- Cloud Provider: AWS CloudFormation is a service provided by Amazon Web Services, while Azure Resource Manager is a service provided by Microsoft Azure.
- Template Language: CloudFormation uses JSON or YAML templates to define infrastructure resources, while Azure Resource Manager uses JSON templates.
- Deployment Scope: CloudFormation operates at a regional level, meaning the templates can provision resources across multiple availability zones within a region. Azure Resource Manager operates at a resource group level, allowing users to deploy and manage resources within a resource group across regions.
- Integration and Ecosystem: CloudFormation has a wide range of integrations and a large ecosystem of third-party tools, making it a mature and widely adopted service. Azure Resource Manager also has a growing ecosystem and integrates well with other Microsoft Azure services.
- Stack Management: CloudFormation allows users to create and manage stacks, which represent a set of resources created from a template. Azure Resource Manager uses resource groups to organize and manage resources.
- Rollback and Update: CloudFormation provides rollback functionality to revert failed updates, allowing users to maintain the previous stack state. Azure Resource Manager also supports rollback, but the behavior may differ depending on the type of resource being updated.
In summary, AWS CloudFormation and Azure Resource Manager are similar in their goal of automating infrastructure provisioning, but they have differences in terms of cloud provider, template language, deployment scope, integration ecosystem, stack management, and rollback/update functionality.
Because Pulumi uses real programming languages, you can actually write abstractions for your infrastructure code, which is incredibly empowering. You still 'describe' your desired state, but by having a programming language at your fingers, you can factor out patterns, and package it up for easier consumption.
We use Terraform to manage AWS cloud environment for the project. It is pretty complex, largely static, security-focused, and constantly evolving.
Terraform provides descriptive (declarative) way of defining the target configuration, where it can work out the dependencies between configuration elements and apply differences without re-provisioning the entire cloud stack.
AdvantagesTerraform is vendor-neutral in a way that it is using a common configuration language (HCL) with plugins (providers) for multiple cloud and service providers.
Terraform keeps track of the previous state of the deployment and applies incremental changes, resulting in faster deployment times.
Terraform allows us to share reusable modules between projects. We have built an impressive library of modules internally, which makes it very easy to assemble a new project from pre-fabricated building blocks.
DisadvantagesSoftware is imperfect, and Terraform is no exception. Occasionally we hit annoying bugs that we have to work around. The interaction with any underlying APIs is encapsulated inside 3rd party Terraform providers, and any bug fixes or new features require a provider release. Some providers have very poor coverage of the underlying APIs.
Terraform is not great for managing highly dynamic parts of cloud environments. That part is better delegated to other tools or scripts.
Terraform state may go out of sync with the target environment or with the source configuration, which often results in painful reconciliation.
I personally am not a huge fan of vendor lock in for multiple reasons:
- I've seen cost saving moves to the cloud end up costing a fortune and trapping companies due to over utilization of cloud specific features.
- I've seen S3 failures nearly take down half the internet.
- I've seen companies get stuck in the cloud because they aren't built cloud agnostic.
I choose to use terraform for my cloud provisioning for these reasons:
- It's cloud agnostic so I can use it no matter where I am.
- It isn't difficult to use and uses a relatively easy to read language.
- It tests infrastructure before running it, and enables me to see and keep changes up to date.
- It runs from the same CLI I do most of my CM work from.
Pros of AWS CloudFormation
- Automates infrastructure deployments43
- Declarative infrastructure and deployment21
- No more clicking around13
- Any Operative System you want3
- Atomic3
- Infrastructure as code3
- CDK makes it truly infrastructure-as-code1
- Automates Infrastructure Deployment1
- K8s0
Pros of Azure Resource Manager
- Bicep - Simple Declarative Language3
- Infrastructure-as-Code1
- Over 1K samples the QuickStart repo1
- Deep integration with Azure services like Azure Policy1
- Day 1 resource support1
- RBAC and Policies in templates1
- Versioned deployment via Blueprints1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CloudFormation
- Brittle4
- No RBAC and policies in templates2