Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Fargate vs Apache NiFi comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache NiFi
Ranking in Compute Service
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
AWS Fargate
Ranking in Compute Service
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Compute Service category, the mindshare of Apache NiFi is 8.0%, up from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of AWS Fargate is 16.7%, up from 15.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Compute Service
 

Featured Reviews

Arjun Pandey - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 25, 2023
Good monitoring, metrics capabilities and provides ability to design processors with a single click
The good thing about Apache NiFi is that it has a concept called a flow file, and there's something called a flow file processor. The processor is the building block of your entire job. They have close to 500 processors for each purpose. For example, for reading from Kafka, Ni-Fi has a processor called "consumer Kafka". To write to S3, they have a processor called "put S3". Now, if I read from Kafka and write my own application, I'd need to ensure the library I'm using tracks my messages. I'd also need to handle any failures by rereading messages and ensuring acknowledgment. But all this complexity is already handled by Apache processor. They have around 500 processors, with a community investing significant effort into developing them. I can design your processor with a single click, export the entire workflow, and import it. The format is actionable, so NiFi is immediately set up. It's also distributed in nature so that I can scale it across nodes based on the workload. These nodes share their state. If one node goes down during processing, that data might be lost, but any subsequent data is safe. Such occurrences are rare. In essence, if you want a quick solution, Apache NiFi is a strong contender. There are other solutions like AirFlow and some paid pipeline options. AirFlow is open-source but can be complicated. For ETL or ERT solutions, there are pricier options. But if I need a pipeline that I can monitor step by step, Apache NiFi is a good choice. It integrates with Prometheus metrics, allowing me to embed them in my workflow. There's also a processor for integration with Slack, and I can receive notifications when the workflow is completed or fails. Another feature I appreciate is "back pressure," which NiFi handles automatically. It maintains its own queue and addresses back-pressure issues. If, for instance, an upstream entity isn't fast enough, items get stored in a queue, managed internally by NiFi's back pressure algorithm.
Subrata Mukherjee - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 18, 2024
Boost demand response with cost-efficient serverless architecture
We are a venture builder company, and if we select AWS for our product. Our design is based on a serverless architecture model. ECS Fargate is the most convenient way in terms of scalability, integration, and cost control Thanks to the serverless model and easy integration features, a few…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The user interface is good and makes it easy to design very popular workflows."
"It's an automated flow, where you can build a flow from source to destination, then do the transformation in between."
"Apache NiFi is user-friendly. Its most valuable features for handling large volumes of data include its multitude of integrated endpoints and clients and the ability to create cron jobs to run tasks at regular intervals."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The most valuable features of this solution are ease of use and implementation."
"The most valuable feature has been the range of clients and the range of connectors that we could use."
"Visually, this is a good product."
"We can integrate the tool with other applications easily."
"AWS Fargate has many valuable services. It does the job with minimal trouble. It's very observable. You can see what's going on and you have logs. You have everything. You can troubleshoot it. It's affordable and it's flexible."
"AWS Fargate is an easy-to-use tool to simplify setup. You only pay for the resources you use. If you need to quickly create, delete, or scale applications without managing resources like EC2 instances, Fargate is the best service to use."
"It allows for focusing on applications instead of managing infrastructure."
"Fargate itself is a stable product. We are quite satisfied with its performance."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Fargate is its ease of use."
"The most valuable feature of Fargate is that it's self-managed. You don't have to configure your own clusters or deploy any Kubernetes clusters. This simplifies the initial deployment and scaling process."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Fargate is its ability to run on demand without the constant run time of basic resources."
"I like their containerization service. You can use Docker or something similar and deploy quickly without the know-how related to, for example, Kubernetes. If you use AKS or Kubernetes, then you have to have the know-how. But for Fargate, you don't need to have the know-how there. You just deploy the container or the image, and then you have the container, and you can use it as AWS takes care of the rest. This makes it easier for those getting started or if you don't have a strong DevOps team inside your organization."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in integration with SSO. For example, NiFi does not have any integration with SSO. And if I want to give some kind of rollback access control across the organization. That is not possible."
"We run many jobs, and there are already large tables. When we do not control NiFi on time, all reports fail for the day. So it's pretty slow to control, and it has to be improved."
"There are some claims that NiFi is cloud-native but we have tested it, and it's not."
"The use case templates could be more precise to typical business needs."
"The overall stability of this solution could be improved. In a future release, we would like to have access to more features that could be used in a parallel way. This would provide more freedom with processing."
"There should be a better way to integrate a development environment with local tools."
"I think the UI interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"More features must be added to the product."
"Challenges include higher costs for smaller clients, limited control over underlying infrastructure customization, and potential latencies during task startup."
"The main area for improvement is the cost, which could be lowered to be more competitive with other major cloud providers."
"I heard from my team that it's not easy to predict the cost. That is the only issue we have with AWS Fargate, but I think that's acceptable. AWS Fargate isn't user-friendly. Anything related to Software as a Service or microservice architecture is not easy to implement. You're required to have DevOps from your side to implement the solution. AWS Fargate is just a temporary solution for us. When we grow to a certain level, we may use AKS for better control."
"AWS Fargate needs improvement in terms of setup complexity."
"I would like to see the older dashboard instead of the newer version. I don't like the new dashboard."
"Service computing is not as straightforward compared to other computing services. It requires more effort to use effectively."
"We would like to see some improvement in the process documents that are provided with this product, particularly for auto-scaling and other configuration tools that are a bit complicated."
"We faced challenges in vertically scaling our workload."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the free version of Apache NiFi."
"The solution is open-source."
"I used the tool's free version."
"It's an open-source solution."
"We would advise that this solution has a slightly-higher price point than others on the market. There is a free plan available for start-ups, but the free and lower range licensing models do not provide the full functionality."
"I rate the price of AWS Fargate a four out of five."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Compute Service solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Apache NiFi?
The tool should incorporate more tutorials for advanced use cases. It has tutorials for simple use cases.
What do you like most about AWS Fargate?
The most valuable feature of Fargate is that it's self-managed. You don't have to configure your own clusters or deploy any Kubernetes clusters. This simplifies the initial deployment and scaling p...
What needs improvement with AWS Fargate?
Service computing is not as straightforward compared to other computing services. It requires more effort to use effectively. In comparison to traditional cloud computing services, service computin...
What advice do you have for others considering AWS Fargate?
For customers who use AWS to organize their application environment, leveraging AWS's computing capabilities can lead to cost optimization. They can use the AWS cloud platform model to access servi...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Macquarie Telecom Group, Dovestech, Slovak Telekom, Looker, Hastings Group
Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Fargate vs. Apache NiFi and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.