Serverless architecture has become a buzzword in the last few years. In 2023, the serverless architecture has been around for market was worth USD 12.08 billion. It's expected to grow more than 20% each year, reaching USD 66.7 billion by 2032. Companies prefer serverless systems because they only pay for the computing power they use, saving on operational costs.
Over 2023, serverless adoption increased by 6% on Azure and 7% on Google Cloud, while AWS grew by 3%. Currently, over 70% of AWS customers, 60% of Google Cloud customers, and 49% of Azure customers use serverless solutions.
But once you set out to implement it for your project — what platform should you choose? At first glance, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Azure and Google Cloud Platform (GCP) services seem nearly the same. Our team had the same question when we decided to start providing our clients with this alternative to a regular backend. We've used and compared Google's Firebase services (Cloud Firestore, Cloud Functions) and AWS services (AWS DynamoDB, AWS Lambda, AWS Amplify) to find out which ones are better. And we've answered the question for ourselves — Firebase. In this article, we'll explain the basics of serverless architecture and why Firebase services suit such software development projects the most.
What is serverless architecture and how it differs from the traditional approach
In this setup, cloud providers like AWS or Google Cloud handle all the app's server operations. Entrepreneurs can create apps without worrying about provisioning or managing backend infrastructure. Resources are allocated automatically based on user actions, and app owners only pay for what they use. This model makes it easy to scale your application during peak demand without extra costs during slower periods.
In contrast, traditional architecture requires businesses to manage their own servers. This includes configuring, scaling, and maintaining them, which can be costly and time-consuming. Entrepreneurs also face the risk of either over-allocating resources that remain unused or under-allocating resources, which can affect app performance during high demand.
Shortly, choose traditional architecture when you need full control over server infrastructure, especially for strict security or legal reasons. If your app needs steady and predictable workloads, traditional architecture can save resources and cut costs. Serverless architecture is better for apps with changing demand, like e-commerce platforms during sales peaks or apps relying on user actions. It scales easily without complicating server management, letting startups and entrepreneurs quickly create and launch their apps.
Now when you know what serverless architecture is suitable for, let's figure out why Firebase services are the best for this approach.
Reasons to choose Firebase for serverless architecture
Straightforward structure
Firebase has a straightforward services structure. It offers a suite for mobile and web apps, including authentication, real-time databases, and analytics within a single console. AWS offers a huge range of services but they are highly segmented and operate independently from each other. It takes a lot of time to figure out how to connect them and make the architecture work as it should.
Clear documentation
Firebase has clear and easy to use documentation. When it comes to AWS services, sometimes it can be tricky to find something in their documentation. It's scattered across several resources and contains more technical information with fewer examples of real use. For businesses, this can mean delayed project timelines and potentially higher costs. Using Firebase, it's easy to get started with writing functions, debugging, database queries implementation, which reduces time to market.
Out-of-the-box solutions
Firebase services are available out of the box. The only thing a developer has to do is to start writing code, which reduces the development time a lot. AWS requires a lot of configuration — from Typescript functions and debugger configurations to even achieve a simple deployment.
Access control
Firebase makes it possible to work with a database on the client side, providing developers with data validation and access control. It means that an app built with Firebase doesn't need a separate backend. AWS doesn't provide the same options. It often requires a backend to manage databases and doesn't offer built-in validation or access control on the client side, making development more time-consuming and potentially costly. Generally speaking, Firebase allows developers to handle a lot of the app's functions directly from the frontend, while AWS still requires a backend layer.
Simple control panel
Firebase has a simpler and easy to use control panel that lets developers manage app services without much hassle. AWS offers many different micro-services, which can make its console confusing and harder to navigate. This complexity can slow down development, requiring more time and effort to understand how to use all the available tools.
Takes less time
Serverless architecture implementation on Firebase is less time-consuming due to the ease of setup and quick integration. AWS services require more initial setup but offer greater flexibility in how applications are built and deployed, which might result in a longer initial development time.
Cost-effective
Firebase offers a pay-as-you-go model that can be more straightforward and predictable for small and medium projects. AWS also provides pay-as-you-go and tiered pricing models but they can be more complex because of numerous services. AWS often suits large-scale enterprise projects more since they have volume discounts and reserved capacity options.
Summing up
Both platforms can be used for serverless architecture implementation. Firebase, however, has some advantages that can be very attractive for startups and businesses that require faster time to market and simple infrastructure. Such businesses can include e-commerce and retail, healthcare, education, entertainment, and on-demand services. Larger enterprises can get more benefits from serverless architecture built on AWS or a traditional backend.
Related posts
Related Services
Development
React Native App Development Services
Development
MVP Development Services
Development