Build vs AWS
Build gives product teams the platform AWS expects them to assemble.
At A Glance
Overview
AWS is the dominant IaaS platform, with GCP and Azure built around the same core model: powerful infrastructure services that teams assemble themselves. Build removes that assembly work by providing the application platform as a finished product.
Build is a full-stack cloud platform: we own and operate the stack from hardware to runtime. AWS owns its infrastructure too, so ownership is not the difference here. The difference is how much of the platform above it you assemble.
What AWS Is
A typical SaaS application on AWS combines compute through EC2, ECS or EKS, databases through RDS, networking through VPCs and Route 53, access control through IAM, observability through CloudWatch, and deployment through AWS or third-party tooling.
None of that is unusual and none of it is wrong. It is simply a platform your team is building and operating itself, alongside the product.
AWS's Strengths
AWS wins on service breadth, geographic reach and infrastructure control.
It gives infrastructure teams far more choice over architecture, from compute and networking through to databases, observability and security, across a much larger global footprint than Build operates.
If your team wants maximum control over how infrastructure is designed and operated, AWS is the stronger fit.
How Build Differs
The Platform Is Already Assembled
On AWS, the work starts before the application does. The platform your application runs on has to be chosen, connected and made coherent before anything ships.
On Build that platform work is already done. The production foundation is there from day one, so teams can start with the application rather than the infrastructure underneath it.
Faster setup, fewer decisions, and one place to deploy, monitor and manage the application.
The Infrastructure Bill Is Only Part Of The Cost
The work does not stop once an AWS application is running. Someone manages IAM and networking, keeps environments consistent, monitors services, reviews infrastructure changes and answers for the bill.
As the account grows, more systems need watching and more decisions need maintaining. The cloud bill is visible. The engineering time around it is not.
At [Baremetrics] volume the assumed path is IaaS and a dedicated DevOps team, but Build absorbs 200+ dyno deploys and 32,000 database writes per second while keeping the PaaS experience.
Build absorbs much of that operational layer, so product teams manage applications rather than a collection of infrastructure services.
Depth When You Need It, Without Starting From Infrastructure
Build is more opinionated than AWS, but it is not a sealed abstraction. Going deeper does not mean going elsewhere:
- Buildpack or Dockerfile deploys
- Direct access to your own Kubernetes namespaces
- Virtual machines alongside standard workloads
AWS offers a much broader range of infrastructure components. The tradeoff is that this flexibility comes with greater operational responsibility. Build's bet is that most product teams need that depth for one or two services, not for the whole application.
Pricing
AWS can be extremely cost-efficient when an architecture is well designed, actively optimized and continuously maintained.
It meters compute, databases, storage, networking, data transfer and observability separately. That gives teams fine-grained control, but keeping costs optimized means choosing the right services, sizing them correctly and continually monitoring utilization. When that attention slips, oversized instances, unnecessary services and unexpected data-transfer costs can quietly accumulate.
Build packages application infrastructure into predictable monthly capacity, with add-on credits, unlimited seats and every platform feature included.
AWS can be cheaper on raw infrastructure, but total cost is more than compute. Once you add in the engineering time required to manage and optimize everything, whether from your existing team or dedicated DevOps hires, AWS can become significantly more expensive overall.
If you're already running a comparable workload on AWS, send us your current invoice. Build will beat it and hold the lower price for 12 months.
Migrating From AWS
Conventional SaaS applications built around containers, Postgres, Redis and standard networking are usually good candidates for Build.
The application itself can often move with little or no rearchitecture, while Build replaces much of the surrounding AWS infrastructure with platform-managed deployment, networking, observability and access controls.
Where specialist AWS services are involved, Build's engineers work through the migration with you, with engineer-led support included for every customer.
Which To Choose
Stay On AWS If
- You want to make every infrastructure decision yourself
- You already have a platform engineering team that owns the infrastructure
- You need a region Build does not operate in
- You depend on specialist services with no equivalent elsewhere
Move To Build If
- You would rather deploy an application than assemble the platform underneath it
- You want engineering time going into the product, not the infrastructure under it
- You want one predictable monthly price with the operational work included
- You need lower-level access for the exceptions, not responsibility for everything
Full Comparison
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Build cheaper than AWS?
AWS can be cheaper on raw infrastructure, but total cost is more than compute. Once you include the time required to manage and optimize your AWS setup, whether from your existing team or dedicated DevOps hires, Build is often lower cost overall.
Does Build run on AWS?
No, Build owns and operates the hardware underlying our platform.
Why choose Build instead of running on EC2, ECS or EKS?
Because those are infrastructure building blocks. A production application still needs deployment workflows, networking, observability, environments, access controls and ongoing platform operations around them. Build provides those as one application platform.
Does this comparison also apply to GCP or Azure?
Yes, the same IaaS tradeoff applies: GCP and Azure provide powerful infrastructure building blocks and broad flexibility, while Build provides the application platform already assembled and removes much of the setup and ongoing operational work.
Can Build replace every AWS service?
AWS has a vast service catalog that is unmatched. Applications that depend heavily on specialist AWS services may be better remaining on AWS, or using those services alongside Build.
Do I need a DevOps team for Build?
No, Build is designed so product teams can run production applications without maintaining an internal infrastructure platform. Kubernetes and VM access remain available when needed.