[Compare · Static / JAMstack Hosting]

Azure Static Web Apps vs Firebase Hosting

Azure Static Web Apps
7.2/ 10
Higher score
Firebase Hosting
8.0/ 10
Across 4 measured dimensions: Azure Static Web Apps wins 0, Firebase Hosting wins 1 (3 tie / n/a)
[01]

Side by side.

8 dimensions
MetricAzure Static Web AppsFirebase Hosting
Score
Winner: right
7.28.0
Δ 90 days
— flat— flat
Parent & badge
Microsoft Corp.
Alphabet Inc.
Founded
20202011
Best for
Teams on Azure who want static + Functions on a single resourceSites already using Firebase Auth/Firestore that need matching hosting
Price per mo
Free/ moFree/ mo
Renewal multiplier
Tagline
Microsoft's static + Functions stack, Free tier is realGoogle's static + edge-rendered hosting, generous Spark tier
[02]

What works, what doesn't.

Per provider
Azure Static Web Apps4 pros · 4 cons
+ Pros
  • Free tier with 100GB bandwidth and custom domains
  • Standard is fixed $9/app/mo — no viral bill shock
  • Built-in Azure Functions integration
  • PR-staged preview environments
– Cons
  • DX trails Vercel/Netlify by a wide margin
  • Azure portal is overwhelming for solo devs
  • Free tier has no SLA
  • Function cold starts are slower than edge competitors
Firebase Hosting4 pros · 4 cons
+ Pros
  • Spark free tier with global CDN
  • Atomic deploys and instant rollback
  • $300 new-user credit on Blaze
  • Tight integration with Cloud Functions / Run
– Cons
  • Spark daily bandwidth cap is tight (360MB/day)
  • Lock-in to Firebase Auth/Firestore
  • Google's product graveyard reputation
  • Blaze billing can spike without spending limits set