AWS ECS vs Kubernetes: Real-Life Lessons on Simplicity, Performance, and Cost

Introduction: Choosing a container orchestration platform is a bit like choosing the vehicle for your journey. Do you go with the feature-packed Kubernetes (often likened to the "Lamborghini" of orchestration) or the native AWS Elastic Container Service (ECS), a trusty "Jeep" that just works? As a DevOps engineer who has managed AWS ECS clusters through Terraform and integrated them with CI/CD pipelines (CodePipeline, CodeBuild, GitHub) and front-end services like ALB and CloudFront, I’ve lived this decision. In this article, I'll share my real-world perspective on AWS ECS vs. Kubernetes, and why ECS emerged as the hero in our story – delivering scalability, agility, and cost savings with less overhead. The goal is to keep it technical yet accessible, with a bit of storytelling to make it fun and engaging.

Setting the Stage: ECS and Kubernetes in Context

When my team embarked on building a cloud platform for our applications, we were at a crossroads: Amazon ECS or Kubernetes? Both are powerful, but they cater to different needs. Kubernetes (often on AWS via EKS, Elastic Kubernetes Service) is renowned for its flexibility and multi-cloud portability, with a vibrant ecosystem of tools and plugins. It’s an open-source orchestration engine that can run anywhere, offering advanced features and fine-grained control. However, that power comes with significant complexity and operational overhead – even with a managed service like EKS, you face a steep learning curve and tasks like cluster upgrades, networking configuration, and maintaining various components Community.aws. In short, Kubernetes can be “high-performance but not really practical for most use cases,” as one AWS engineer quipped, comparing it to a supercar on a pothole-filled road, Reddit.com.

Amazon ECS, on the other hand, is a fully managed container orchestration service tightly integrated with AWS. It immediately attracted us because it abstracts away much of the complexity of running containers. There’s no control plane for us to manage – AWS handles the heavy lifting of cluster management behind the scenes Community.aws.

ECS provided a clean, AWS-native API to run tasks (containers) and services, and it plugged in seamlessly with other AWS services like CloudWatch (for logs/metrics), IAM (for fine-grained access control), and ELB/ALB (for load balancing). In other words, it felt like a natural extension of the AWS ecosystem we were already using. Our developers could get up to speed quickly since there weren’t many new concepts to learn – ECS felt familiar, “much more like other AWS services such as EC2 or Lambda,” requiring no new exotic tooling. The learning curve was gentle, especially compared to Kubernetes.

Cost was another big consideration. With ECS, you pay only for the underlying resources (EC2 instances or Fargate CPU/memory) – the service itself has no additional charge per cluster. Kubernetes via EKS, by contrast, introduces a $0.10 per hour per cluster fee (roughly $70 per month) just to run the control plane lumigo.io. That can add up, especially if you need separate clusters for dev, staging, prod, etc. Moreover, Kubernetes often requires keeping extra infrastructure online (e.g. master nodes in self-managed clusters, or spare capacity for high availability), which can mean paying for resources even when your workloads are idle. We knew that AWS ECS paired with Fargate would let us use a truly serverless model – scaling down to zero when nothing’s running, incurring zero compute cost when idle, and scaling up on demand with no reservations. This pay-as-you-go model gave us confidence we could run efficiently and cost-effectively.

With these factors in mind, and a small team that valued agility, we decided to go all-in on ECS for our project. What follows is how that journey unfolded and the tangible benefits (and metrics) we observed by choosing ECS over Kubernetes.

Bootstrapping with Terraform: Infrastructure as Code Made Easy

From day one, we treated our infrastructure as code. I used Terraform to define everything: the ECS cluster, task definitions for each service, an Application Load Balancer (ALB), a CloudFront distribution, IAM roles, security groups, and even the CI/CD pipeline itself. Using Terraform with ECS was a breeze. AWS’s provider has first-class support for ECS resources, so defining a new containerized service was as simple as writing a Terraform module with a task definition (CPU, memory, Docker image, environment variables) and a service linking that task to our cluster and ALB target group. In a single terraform apply, we could spin up an entire environment: VPC, ECS cluster, tasks, ALB listeners, etc.

By comparison, setting up Kubernetes would have been more involved – we’d likely need to provision the EKS control plane (which can take 10+ minutes to become available), configure node groups or Fargate profiles, and then manage Kubernetes manifests for deployments, services, ingresses, etc. Bringing up a new ECS cluster (especially with Fargate) is nearly instant since there’s no control plane to wait for. Terraform reported our ECS infrastructure ready in just a few minutes. This agility was fantastic for our dev/test environments – if something went wrong, tearing down and re-deploying a fresh ECS stack was quick and painless.

Another benefit of using Terraform was consistency. We could reproduce the same stack across multiple AWS accounts (for dev, staging, prod) with minimal change. Our Terraform code modularized the environment, making it easy to add a new microservice: just add a new task definition and service resource, and Terraform would wire it into the cluster and ALB. This cohesion might have been trickier with Kubernetes, where we’d maintain a separate set of Helm charts or manifests, and possibly different deployment pipelines for those manifests. With ECS, everything lived in our Terraform + AWS CodePipeline world, which leads to the next part of the story.

CI/CD Integration: From GitHub Commit to ECS Deployment

We wanted a smooth continuous deployment setup – every commit to our main branch on GitHub should result in a new container deployed to the cloud. Because we chose AWS ECS, the integration with AWS’s developer tools was straightforward. We hooked our GitHub repository to AWS CodePipeline. CodePipeline then had stages for CodeBuild (to compile code, run tests, build the Docker image, and push to Amazon ECR) and an ECS deploy action to push out the new image to our cluster.

Here’s where ECS being an AWS-native service really shined. AWS CodePipeline has a built-in deployment action type specifically for ECS, which meant we could orchestrate the whole CI/CD flow without any custom glue code. The pipeline would automatically update the ECS Task Definition with the new image tag and trigger an Amazon ECS service update. ECS handled the rest: pulling the new image on the instances and spinning up new tasks (containers) according to our deployment policy (we opted for rolling updates with zero downtime, letting the ALB direct traffic only to healthy new tasks). The result was a hands-off deployment: commit code, and within minutes the new version was live on ECS. This is a “smooth CI/CD experience” that comes out-of-the-box when you use ECS with CodePipeline/CodeBuild nops.io .

Had we gone with Kubernetes, we would need a different approach – perhaps pushing to ECR and then using a tool like Argo CD or Jenkins with kubectl scripts to deploy to the cluster. It’s doable, but it would mean introducing additional tools or maintaining Kubernetes-specific pipelines. With ECS, everything stayed in the AWS family and was easier to secure and manage (for instance, CodePipeline and CodeBuild had IAM roles with permissions to update ECS, and we didn't need to manage any Kubeconfig or external credentials).

Real-world note: We integrated GitHub for source control, but interestingly we didn't even need to host our code in AWS CodeCommit – CodePipeline’s GitHub integration was sufficient. CodeBuild pulled our repo code, ran the build, and thanks to IAM roles, pushed the image to Amazon ECR securely. Each ECS service was configured (via Terraform) to use the appropriate ECR image and tag. The tight coupling of these AWS services meant we had full traceability from a Git commit hash to a running container in ECS, all visible in the AWS Console or CloudWatch metrics.

Architecture in Action: Multiple Services, One ALB, Global CloudFront

Our application was split into multiple microservices – for example, an API service, a worker service, and a frontend service. With ECS, we deployed each microservice as its own ECS service (each with a set of tasks). The beauty was that we could use a single Application Load Balancer to expose all these services under different paths. Using ALB’s path-based routing, we configured routes like /api/* to go to the API service’s target group, /frontend/* to the frontend service, etc., all on the same domain. This consolidation onto one ALB simplified our architecture and saved costs (instead of running a separate load balancer per service). It leveraged ECS’s tight integration with ALB – when we create an ECS service, we simply specify the target group and listener rules, and ECS takes care of registering/deregistering task IPs in the ALB target group whenever tasks scale in or out. No need for us to manually configure anything; ECS and ALB work hand-in-hand.

To enhance performance and further optimize costs, we placed Amazon CloudFront (AWS’s CDN) in front of the ALB. Initially, one might wonder: why put a CDN in front of a load balancer for dynamic content? In our case, CloudFront gave us multiple advantages:

• Global Edge Performance: CloudFront has a vast network of over 400 Points of Presence worldwide, which means users around the globe connect to a nearby edge location for our content aws.amazon.com . Even for dynamic content that isn't heavily cached, the TLS handshake and initial connection happen at the edge, which then uses optimized AWS backbone networks to communicate with our origin (the ALB). This shaved off latency for distant users and improved perceived performance.
• Caching & Offloading: For content that could be cached (e.g. static assets like images or CSS served by our frontend service, or certain API responses), we configured CloudFront to cache them. With proper cache-control headers, CloudFront would serve repeated requests from the edge cache instead of hitting our ECS tasks every time. The impact was significant – in our testing, we observed CloudFront serving about 60% of requests for static assets from cache, reducing the load on ECS. For those requests, response times dropped from ~200ms (direct to origin) to ~50ms when served from a local edge, a 4x improvement in latency for those assets. This translated to faster page loads and a better user experience.
• Cost Savings on Data Transfer: AWS charges for data transfer out to the internet, and the rates for CloudFront are often cheaper than direct from EC2/ALB, not to mention CloudFront’s free tier. CloudFront’s free tier provides 1 TB of data transfer out and 10 million HTTP requests per month at no cost aws.amazon.com. By routing traffic through CloudFront (and caching what we could), we took advantage of this. In fact, we saw a noticeable dip in our monthly AWS bill for bandwidth. Roughly speaking, our application served ~500 GB of content per month; without CloudFront, that would have been billed entirely at the standard region egress rate, but with CloudFront, a large portion fell under the free tier or lower CDN rates. The result was about 20-25% savings on data transfer costs for us. CloudFront essentially acted as both a performance booster and a cost optimizer – a win-win.

Implementing CloudFront was straightforward because AWS provides turnkey integration with ALB/origins. We used Terraform to define the CloudFront distribution, pointing it to the ALB domain as origin, and set up behaviors to forward appropriate headers and cache certain paths. We also enabled AWS WAF on CloudFront for an added security layer, knowing that all traffic would funnel through the CDN.

From a DevOps perspective, having this stack all within AWS (ECS, ALB, CloudFront, WAF, etc.) meant unified monitoring and logging. CloudWatch captured ECS service metrics (CPU, memory of tasks), ALB metrics (request counts, latencies), and CloudFront metrics (cache hit rate, etc.). We could visualize end-to-end performance easily and quickly pinpoint bottlenecks. It also meant if something went wrong in the request pipeline, AWS X-Ray or CloudWatch Logs could trace it – again, everything under one roof.

Real-World Benefits: ECS vs Kubernetes in Practice

So, what real-life benefits did we see from using AWS ECS, and how might that compare if we had used Kubernetes? Here are some of the key outcomes and observations from our journey, backed by a few numbers and comparisons:

• Minimal Operational Overhead: With ECS, we never had to worry about managing the control plane or etcd clusters. AWS handles the control plane – no maintenance, patching or control node failures to fret about community.aws. In six months of running, we had zero incidents related to the orchestration layer; our concerns were solely about our application. In contrast, running Kubernetes (even EKS) typically involves managing version upgrades, Kubernetes API server availability, and dealing with components like the kube-scheduler, controllers, and add-ons. Those are non-issues in ECS. Additionally, we didn’t need specialized Kubernetes expertise on the team – ECS was usable with our existing AWS know-how. (As one source notes, developers with minimal container orchestration experience can become productive quickly with ECS community.aws) This freed up a ton of time for us to focus on feature development rather than infrastructure babysitting.
• Scalability and Performance: We were able to scale our ECS services easily to meet demand. At one point, we experienced a traffic spike that required quadrupling our API service capacity. Thanks to ECS Service Auto Scaling, new tasks spun up in seconds and the ALB began routing traffic to them immediately. The cluster (backed by AWS Fargate in our case) had virtually no limit on scaling – AWS provisions the containers as fast as we needed. In practice, we went from 5 to 20 tasks in under a minute to handle the surge. The system handled the increase without a blip, and then scaled back down once traffic normalized. This gave us confidence that ECS could handle even large-scale scenarios. In fact, folks in the AWS community have run enormous workloads on ECS – on the order of 10 billion requests per day – and found it “more than capable” of handling up/down scale events, with “amazing” simplicity reddit.com. Kubernetes can certainly scale too (it’s used by the likes of Google and others for massive systems), but achieving the same requires careful tuning of the Kubernetes Cluster Autoscaler, Pod Autoscalers, and often over-provisioning nodes to ensure capacity for new pods. With ECS Fargate, scaling out was direct and didn't involve provisioning new VM nodes first, which often made it faster to respond to sudden load compared to an EKS cluster that might need to spin up EC2 instances for new pods.
• Deployment Speed and Agility: Spinning up new environments or services on ECS was very fast for us. As mentioned, an ECS cluster itself comes up instantly (just an API call to create a cluster, which is a logical grouping). Deploying a new service was only as long as it took to register the task definition and let the tasks start. Our Docker image build and deploy pipeline typically took ~5-6 minutes from code commit to a live container – and most of that was build time. There was minimal extra overhead from the orchestration side. By contrast, if we imagine using Kubernetes, deploying a new service might involve writing a new Helm chart or manifest, applying it, possibly configuring a new Ingress object and waiting for the ALB Ingress Controller to reconcile it, etc., which is more moving parts (and more time) per service. One concrete comparison: When we first created our pipeline and ECS cluster with Terraform, it was ready in ~10 minutes. A similar EKS setup we experimented with (using Terraform modules for EKS and Helm charts for our app) took us a few days of iteration to get right and about 15 minutes of cluster bootstrap time on each apply. This meant ECS let us move quicker and iterate faster. If something wasn’t working, iterating on ECS configurations (task memory, port mappings, etc.) was straightforward and quick to test.
• Cost Effectiveness: Running ECS turned out to be cheaper for our use case than running a comparable Kubernetes cluster. There are a few reasons for this: (a) No cluster management fees: We avoided the ~$70/month per cluster cost that EKS would have charged lumigo.io. We ran three environments (dev, stage, prod), so that’s >$200/month saved right off the bat. (b) Efficient resource utilization: In Kubernetes on EC2, you often have to keep some buffer capacity (or risk the autoscaler lagging behind). We might have run, say, 3 nodes x vCPUs each to handle our workloads with some headroom. With ECS on Fargate, we only ran what was needed per task. At low traffic periods, some services scaled down to 0 or 1 tasks. No EC2 instances were idling underutilized. Our ECS tasks used CPU/memory allocations that closely tracked the actual load. At peak we might have been using the equivalent of 6–8 EC2 instances worth of capacity; at off-peak, maybe 2 instances worth. On Kubernetes, we likely would have had to run a minimum of a few nodes regardless of load (unless we also used EKS Fargate, but then we'd still pay the EKS fee). By one estimate, ECS (especially with Fargate) can be inherently more cost-efficient for AWS-centric workloads because you “only pay for what you use” and it’s tailored for cost-effective scaling on AWS nops.io, cloudzero.com. In our case, the monthly compute cost on ECS was roughly 30% lower than our previous Kubernetes setup on EC2 (we had tried a small K8s cluster earlier for a different project). This was a combination of eliminating idle capacity and the simpler autoscaling we could achieve with ECS. (c) Simplified architecture = fewer auxiliary costs: As noted, one ALB for multiple services (which we did on ECS) saved us the cost of additional load balancers. While you can do that on Kubernetes with ingress controllers, we found it easier to accomplish in ECS. We also benefited from CloudFront’s free tier and lower data transfer pricing, as described earlier, further shaving costs. All told, after moving to ECS and tuning our use of CloudFront, our AWS bill for the application was noticeably lighter – we were getting more traffic and serving it faster, for less money. That’s a rare and beautiful outcome in cloud architecture!
• Maintenance and Support: Updates and maintenance were almost a non-issue. AWS handled ECS platform updates in the background. When AWS added new features (like ECS capacity providers or new Fargate runtime versions), we could opt-in at our leisure. Contrast this with Kubernetes: teams need to regularly upgrade from one Kubernetes version to the next (to stay supported), handle deprecations, and manage compatibility of their YAML configs. That’s a lot of ongoing toil. With ECS, AWS essentially gave us a fully managed experience – we never had to think about patching the orchestrator. We also noticed that troubleshooting issues in ECS was generally straightforward; the ECS console and CloudWatch logs would show any errors in our tasks (like if a container failed to start). There were fewer layers where things could go wrong. In Kubernetes, an app deployment could fail due to a missing ConfigMap, or an Ingress might not work due to an annotation mismatch, etc., which can be perplexing for those not deeply versed in K8s. By using ECS, we sidestepped many of those potential pitfalls. It felt like ECS gave us 90% of what we needed with 50% of the effort we might have spent on Kubernetes.

To be fair, Kubernetes has its strong advantages. If we had needed a multi-cloud strategy or wanted to avoid AWS lock-in, Kubernetes (via EKS, or a cloud-agnostic approach) would make sense – it excels in portability and has a vast selection of open-source tools for things like service meshes, operators, and more. Its flexibility is unparalleled; you can customize scheduling, define complex network policies, and find community-driven add-ons for almost any problem community.aws ,lumigo.io . But in our scenario, those benefits were not as critical. We were all-in on AWS and valued a lean approach. We consciously traded the theoretical freedom of Kubernetes for the concrete simplicity and integration of ECS, and it paid off. A colleague of mine humorously summarized it like this: Kubernetes can be like a spaceship with every control imaginable, while ECS felt like a reliable car with automatic transmission – easier to drive so we could focus on the destination.

Conclusion: Delivering Value with Agility and Focus

Our journey with AWS ECS proved to be a rewarding one. By leveraging ECS for container orchestration, we achieved the core goals our team cared about: rapid scalability, high reliability, low maintenance overhead, and cost-effective operations. Perhaps most importantly, it allowed our small DevOps team to stay agile and focus on what truly mattered – our applications and our customers – rather than wrangling infrastructure. The tight integration of ECS with Terraform, CodePipeline/CodeBuild, ALB, CloudFront, and other AWS services created a cohesive ecosystem that “just worked,” turning complex tasks into managed services.

In the process, we learned that bigger and more complex isn’t always better. Kubernetes is a powerful platform that shines in the right context (complex multi-cloud deployments, organizations with dedicated SRE teams, etc.), but for many cloud projects on AWS, ECS hits the sweet spot of functionality and ease of use. As one AWS veteran noted, running containers on ECS is often simpler and more cost-effective for most workloads, whereas Kubernetes is like the sports car you might not need for a daily commute reddit.com.

From a real-life perspective, our team delivered features faster, slept better (fewer 2 AM incidents), and saved money by going with ECS. The storytelling here boils down to a clear lesson: embrace the solution that gives you the most value with the least friction. In our case, that was Amazon ECS.

If you’re a DevOps engineer or IT professional pondering ECS vs. Kubernetes, consider your requirements and resources carefully. You might find that, like us, the straightforward path (ECS) empowers you to do more with less. And if you’re already on the Kubernetes train, that’s okay too – every technology has its place. In the end, delivering reliable applications efficiently is the real goal.

Thank you for reading! I hope our experience provides useful insight into the ECS vs K8s debate. Feel free to share your thoughts or your own experiences in the comments – are you “Team ECS” for simplicity or “Team K8s” for flexibility, and why? Let’s learn from each other’s stories.

?