Microsoft's static + Functions stack, Free tier is real
"They're an easy way to quickly host some static files – HTML and JavaScript – on a URL and have all the scaling and content distribution taken care of for you."
"Static feels safe, predictable, and cheap, which makes security teams happy. Less moving parts, fewer late night alerts."
"Azure Static Web Apps are a good choice for hosting static content with serverless functions, especially for your use case."
"When it comes to static sites and traditional single page apps, I've always hosted them as Azure Static Web Apps. That seems to work OK."
"Pretty much, you're charged for bandwidth and number of operations - but (depending on traffic) it's pretty cheap."
"While I think this is great, I won't be able to convince my team to use it in our environment, simply due to the dependency on having it be."
"There is one small drawback to Static Web Apps. You have to store your code in GitHub, but odds are you do that anyway."
"Azure Static Web Apps feel like a good idea, but in practice I struggled with understanding what the product is trying to be."
"Azure functions in my experience aren't great at; long running processes, stateful processing, or reacting to anything that isn't Microsoft Paas."
"From what I understand static web apps have a 'cold start' where if they haven't been touched in so long they get killed."
We get a commission if you sign up via this link. Our score doesn't move because of it.