AWS vs Cloudflare Pages for Solo Developers

Quick Comparison

AWS Overview

AWS offers multiple ways to host websites and web applications. For static sites, there's S3 static hosting with CloudFront CDN. For full applications, there's EC2, Elastic Beanstalk, App Runner, Lightsail, and Lambda. The platform handles every hosting scenario from a simple HTML page to a globally distributed application serving millions of users.

AWS Amplify is the closest AWS equivalent to Cloudflare Pages. It deploys static sites and server-side rendered apps from Git with a web-based dashboard. It's more developer-friendly than raw S3+CloudFront, but still carries AWS's inherent complexity with IAM roles, build configurations, and pricing across multiple services.

For enterprise teams with DevOps resources, AWS is the gold standard. For solo developers who want to deploy a website, it's like bringing a semi-truck to deliver a package.

Cloudflare Pages Overview

Cloudflare Pages is a frontend hosting platform that deploys static sites and JAMstack applications to Cloudflare's global edge network with 300+ data centers. Connect a GitHub or GitLab repo, configure a build command, and your site is live globally in minutes.

The free tier is the best in the industry. Unlimited sites, unlimited bandwidth, unlimited requests, 500 builds per month, and preview deployments for every pull request. Pages Functions (powered by Workers) add server-side logic when needed. No cold starts, no spin-downs.

I deploy Astro and static sites on Cloudflare Pages regularly. The experience is fast, reliable, and costs nothing. Build times are quick, deployments propagate globally in seconds, and the dashboard is clean and intuitive.

Key Differences

Ease of deployment. Hosting a static site on AWS the "right way" means S3 for hosting, CloudFront for CDN, Route 53 for DNS, ACM for SSL certificates, and proper IAM policies to connect them. That's 5 services for one website. Cloudflare Pages: connect a repo, choose a framework preset, click deploy. One service, one step, same result.

Cost for static hosting. Cloudflare Pages is free with unlimited bandwidth. AWS S3+CloudFront charges for storage ($0.023/GB), requests ($0.01/10K), and data transfer ($0.085/GB after 1TB). A popular blog with 100K monthly visitors could cost $5-15/month on AWS and $0 on Cloudflare Pages. For budget-conscious solo developers, free is hard to argue against.

Global performance. Both deliver excellent global performance, but through different scales. CloudFront has 450+ edge locations. Cloudflare has 300+ locations. Both are fast globally. The practical difference for most websites is negligible. However, Cloudflare Pages serves everything from the edge by default with zero configuration, while AWS requires proper CloudFront distribution setup.

Backend capabilities. AWS provides every backend service imaginable: EC2, Lambda, RDS, DynamoDB, SQS, SES, and 200+ more. Cloudflare Pages Functions run on the Workers runtime with JavaScript/TypeScript, limited execution time, and no persistent connections. For complex backends, there's no comparison. AWS handles anything. Cloudflare Pages handles lightweight serverless logic only.

Full-stack hosting. AWS hosts your entire application: frontend, backend, database, cache, queue, storage, CDN, DNS. Everything under one provider. Cloudflare Pages hosts your frontend and lightweight serverless functions. For the backend, you need another provider. AWS is the all-in-one option.

Pricing complexity. AWS bills span dozens of line items across multiple services. A simple S3+CloudFront setup generates charges for storage, requests, data transfer, Route 53 queries, and certificate management. Cloudflare Pages has one pricing page: free, or $5/month for Pro with higher limits. The mental overhead of tracking AWS costs is a real factor for solo developers.

Build and deploy experience. Cloudflare Pages has one of the smoothest deployment experiences available. Pick your framework, it auto-configures build settings. Previews deploy automatically for pull requests. Rollbacks are instant. AWS Amplify offers similar functionality but with more configuration required and less intuitive defaults.

When to Choose AWS

• You're building a full-stack application that needs backend services
• You need databases, queuing, ML, or other managed services alongside your frontend
• Enterprise compliance or specific AWS certifications are required
• Your infrastructure already lives on AWS and you want everything consolidated
• You need capabilities beyond what serverless edge functions provide

When to Choose Cloudflare Pages

• You're building static sites, blogs, documentation, or JAMstack apps
• Free unlimited bandwidth is important for your budget
• Global edge performance with zero configuration is a priority
• Pages Functions can handle your server-side needs
• You want the simplest deployment experience for frontend projects

The Verdict

For frontend hosting, Cloudflare Pages wins decisively over AWS. It's simpler, faster to set up, globally distributed by default, and free. There's no scenario where setting up S3+CloudFront+Route53+ACM is preferable to clicking deploy on Cloudflare Pages for a static site.

AWS wins when you need a complete backend infrastructure. Databases, compute, serverless functions with complex integrations, ML services. Cloudflare Pages can't replace a proper backend, and it doesn't try to.

My recommendation: use Cloudflare Pages for every frontend and static site. It's free and excellent. If your project needs a backend, use a separate provider (DigitalOcean, Hetzner, or yes, AWS if you need specific services) for that piece. Don't use AWS for static hosting when Cloudflare Pages exists. The cost, complexity, and time savings aren't worth the trade-off.