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. DevOps
  3. Build Automation
  4. Infrastructure Build Tools
  5. AWS CloudFormation vs Vagrant

AWS CloudFormation vs Vagrant

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

AWS CloudFormation
AWS CloudFormation
Stacks1.6K
Followers1.3K
Votes88
Vagrant
Vagrant
Stacks11.9K
Followers7.8K
Votes1.5K

AWS CloudFormation vs Vagrant: What are the differences?

Introduction: In comparing AWS CloudFormation and Vagrant, it is important to highlight the key differences between these two infrastructure provisioning tools.

  1. Flexibility: AWS CloudFormation is a service provided by Amazon Web Services for managing and provisioning resources in the cloud, while Vagrant is an open-source tool for building and managing virtual machine environments locally. CloudFormation offers more flexibility in terms of managing resources, scaling, and automation within the AWS ecosystem, while Vagrant is primarily used for local development environments.

  2. Scope: AWS CloudFormation is focused on managing resources within the AWS cloud infrastructure, allowing users to define infrastructure as code using JSON or YAML templates. On the other hand, Vagrant is focused on creating and managing virtual machine environments across a variety of providers, including VirtualBox, VMware, and AWS.

  3. Portability: Vagrant offers greater portability in terms of being able to deploy consistent development environments across different providers and platforms. Users can easily share Vagrant configurations and boxes, allowing for seamless replication of development environments. In contrast, AWS CloudFormation templates are specific to the AWS ecosystem and may not be as easily portable to other cloud providers.

  4. Automation: AWS CloudFormation provides built-in automation capabilities for deploying and managing resources within the AWS ecosystem, allowing for infrastructure changes to be made programmatically. Vagrant, while capable of automating the provisioning of virtual machine environments, may require additional tools or scripts to achieve the same level of automation within cloud environments outside of AWS.

  5. Integration: AWS CloudFormation integrates seamlessly with other AWS services, allowing users to easily provision resources and manage dependencies within the AWS ecosystem. Vagrant, while versatile in its ability to work with different providers, may not offer the same level of integration with cloud services and features as CloudFormation within the AWS environment.

  6. Scalability: AWS CloudFormation is designed to handle large-scale deployments and infrastructure management within the AWS cloud, offering features such as stack updates, drift detection, and resource rollback capabilities. Vagrant, on the other hand, is more suited for smaller-scale deployments and local development environments, lacking the advanced scalability features provided by CloudFormation.

In Summary, AWS CloudFormation and Vagrant differ in terms of flexibility, scope, portability, automation, integration, and scalability, with CloudFormation being more tailored to managing resources within the AWS cloud ecosystem while Vagrant focuses on local development environments and multi-provider support.

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 AWS CloudFormation, Vagrant

Timothy
Timothy

SRE

Mar 20, 2020

Decided

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.
385k views385k
Comments
Daniel
Daniel

May 4, 2020

Decided

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.

426k views426k
Comments
Sergey
Sergey

Contractor at Adaptive

Apr 17, 2020

Decided

Overview

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.

Advantages

Terraform 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.

Disadvantages

Software 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.

426k views426k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

AWS CloudFormation
AWS CloudFormation
Vagrant
Vagrant

You can use AWS CloudFormation’s sample templates or create your own templates to describe the AWS resources, and any associated dependencies or runtime parameters, required to run your application. You don’t need to figure out the order in which AWS services need to be provisioned or the subtleties of how to make those dependencies work.

Vagrant provides the framework and configuration format to create and manage complete portable development environments. These development environments can live on your computer or in the cloud, and are portable between Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

AWS CloudFormation comes with the following ready-to-run sample templates: WordPress (blog),Tracks (project tracking), Gollum (wiki used by GitHub), Drupal (content management), Joomla (content management), Insoshi (social apps), Redmine (project mgmt);No Need to Reinvent the Wheel – A template can be used repeatedly to create identical copies of the same stack (or to use as a foundation to start a new stack);Transparent and Open – Templates are simple JSON formatted text files that can be placed under your normal source control mechanisms, stored in private or public locations such as Amazon S3 and exchanged via email.;Declarative and Flexible – To create the infrastructure you want, you enumerate what AWS resources, configuration values and interconnections you need in a template and then let AWS CloudFormation do the rest with a few simple clicks in the AWS Management Console, via the command line tools or by calling the APIs.
Boxes;Up And SSH;Synced Folders;Provisioning;Networking;Share;Teardown;Rebuild;Providers
Statistics
Stacks
1.6K
Stacks
11.9K
Followers
1.3K
Followers
7.8K
Votes
88
Votes
1.5K
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 43
    Automates infrastructure deployments
  • 21
    Declarative infrastructure and deployment
  • 13
    No more clicking around
  • 3
    Infrastructure as code
  • 3
    Atomic
Cons
  • 4
    Brittle
  • 2
    No RBAC and policies in templates
Pros
  • 352
    Development environments
  • 290
    Simple bootstraping
  • 237
    Free
  • 139
    Boxes
  • 130
    Provisioning
Cons
  • 2
    Can become v complex w prod. provisioner (Salt, etc.)
  • 2
    Multiple VMs quickly eat up disk space
  • 1
    Development environment that kills your battery
Integrations
No integrations available
Amazon EC2
Amazon EC2
Microsoft Azure
Microsoft Azure
DigitalOcean
DigitalOcean
HP Cloud Compute
HP Cloud Compute
Joyent Cloud
Joyent Cloud
Rackspace Cloud Servers
Rackspace Cloud Servers
SoftLayer
SoftLayer
VirtualBox
VirtualBox

What are some alternatives to AWS CloudFormation, Vagrant?

boot2docker

boot2docker

boot2docker is a lightweight Linux distribution based on Tiny Core Linux made specifically to run Docker containers. It runs completely from RAM, weighs ~27MB and boots in ~5s (YMMV).

Packer

Packer

Packer automates the creation of any type of machine image. It embraces modern configuration management by encouraging you to use automated scripts to install and configure the software within your Packer-made images.

Scalr

Scalr

Scalr is a remote state & operations backend for Terraform with access controls, policy as code, and many quality of life features.

Pulumi

Pulumi

Pulumi is a cloud development platform that makes creating cloud programs easy and productive. Skip the YAML and just write code. Pulumi is multi-language, multi-cloud and fully extensible in both its engine and ecosystem of packages.

Otto

Otto

Otto automatically builds development environments without any configuration; it can detect your project type and has built-in knowledge of industry-standard tools to setup a development environment that is ready to go. When you're ready to deploy, otto builds and manages an infrastructure, sets up servers, builds, and deploys the application.

libvirt

libvirt

It is an open-source API, daemon and management tool for managing platform virtualization. It can be used to manage KVM, Xen, VMware ESXi, QEMU and other virtualization technologies.

Azure Resource Manager

Azure Resource Manager

It is the deployment and management service for Azure. It provides a management layer that enables you to create, update, and delete resources in your Azure subscription. You use management features, like access control, locks, and tags, to secure and organize your resources after deployment.

Habitat

Habitat

Habitat is a new approach to automation that focuses on the application instead of the infrastructure it runs on. With Habitat, the apps you build, deploy, and manage behave consistently in any runtime — metal, VMs, containers, and PaaS. You'll spend less time on the environment and more time building features.

Google Cloud Deployment Manager

Google Cloud Deployment Manager

Google Cloud Deployment Manager allows you to specify all the resources needed for your application in a declarative format using yaml.

Azk

Azk

azk lets developers easily and quickly install and configure development environments on their computers.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana