Quick comparison
| Criterion | Azure Functions | AWS Lambda | Comparability note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Function execution | Azure FunctionsConsumption: 5m default, 10m max; other plans: 30m default, unbounded max with caveatsHosting-plan specificMicrosoft | AWS Lambda900 seconds (15 minutes)A function-level configuration ceiling; the configured timeout may be lower.Amazon Web Services | Azure can be unbounded on some plans with caveats, while Consumption is much shorter. |
| Synchronous HTTP wait | Azure Functions230 secondsHTTP-triggered functionsMicrosoft | AWS Lambda900 seconds (15 minutes)A function-level configuration ceiling; the configured timeout may be lower.Amazon Web Services | Azure's 230-second value is a front-door response cap; Lambda integrations can add their own timeouts. |
Which is best for your requirement?
Its documented function execution scope fits your measured workload and the caveats shown in the comparison.
Its documented execution or account model better matches the exact requirement rather than a vendor-wide headline.
Test payload, duration, throughput, concurrency, failure behavior, billing scope, and recovery with representative traffic.
Validate the decision with your workload
Before choosing between Azure Functions and AWS Lambda, reproduce the comparison with the exact plans, models, regions, runtimes, and invocation paths you intend to operate. The reviewed rows cover function execution and synchronous http wait; they do not turn different pricing, reliability, developer experience, or ecosystem tradeoffs into one universal score.
- Capture representative request sizes, token usage, duration, concurrency, storage, and failure behavior at realistic percentiles.
- Test the boundary and the recovery path on both candidates, including throttling, timeouts, partial failure, retries, and cost controls.
- Record which scoped observation drove the choice and recheck its official source before migration or a major traffic increase.