AWS vs Vercel for Next.js: Every Dollar Tracked for 6 Months
Everyone says "it depends" when you ask about cloud costs. But I wanted real numbers. So I ran the same Next.js application on both AWS and Vercel for 6 months and tracked every penny.
Here's what I learned.
The Setup
To make this a fair comparison, I deployed identical Next.js applications:
- Framework: Next.js 14 with App Router
- Traffic: ~50,000 monthly visitors
- Pages: 25 static pages + 10 dynamic routes
- API Routes: 5 serverless functions
- Images: ~200 optimized images
- Build Time: ~3 minutes
The Costs: Month by Month
| Month | AWS Cost | Vercel Cost | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Month 1 | $18.42 | $20.00 | AWS |
| Month 2 | $16.89 | $20.00 | AWS |
| Month 3 | $22.15 | $20.00 | Vercel |
| Month 4 | $19.33 | $20.00 | AWS |
| Month 5 | $17.56 | $20.00 | AWS |
| Month 6 | $20.08 | $20.00 | Vercel (barely) |
| Total | $114.43 | $120.00 | AWS ($5.57 cheaper) |
Surprise finding: The cost difference was negligible—less than $1/month on average. But the hidden costs told a different story.
AWS Cost Breakdown
Here's where my AWS money went each month (average):
- S3 Storage: $0.50 (static files)
- CloudFront: $12.00 (CDN bandwidth)
- Lambda: $3.50 (API routes)
- Route 53: $0.50 (DNS)
- CloudWatch: $2.00 (logs and monitoring)
- Data Transfer: $0.50
Total: ~$19/month
Vercel Cost Breakdown
Vercel was simpler:
- Pro Plan: $20.00/month (flat rate)
That's it. Everything included.
The Hidden Costs
But here's where it gets interesting. The dollar amounts don't tell the whole story.
Time Investment
- AWS Setup Time: 6 hours (S3, CloudFront, Lambda, GitHub Actions)
- Vercel Setup Time: 15 minutes (connect GitHub, done)
If you value your time at $50/hour, that's $300 in setup time for AWS vs $12.50 for Vercel. Suddenly Vercel looks a lot cheaper.
Maintenance Time
Over 6 months:
- AWS: ~4 hours debugging CloudFront cache issues, updating Lambda functions, fixing GitHub Actions workflow
- Vercel: 0 hours (it just worked)
Monitoring and Debugging
- AWS: Had to set up CloudWatch, configure alarms, debug through multiple services
- Vercel: Built-in analytics, deployment logs, and error tracking
When AWS Wins
Despite the complexity, AWS made sense for:
- High traffic sites: At 500k+ monthly visitors, AWS becomes significantly cheaper
- Custom requirements: Need specific Lambda configurations or VPC access? AWS gives you that control
- Existing AWS infrastructure: If you're already using RDS, DynamoDB, etc., staying in AWS makes sense
- Cost optimization: With Reserved Instances and Savings Plans, you can reduce costs by 30-50%
When Vercel Wins
Vercel was the clear winner for:
- Speed to market: Deploy in minutes, not hours
- Developer experience: Preview deployments, automatic HTTPS, zero config
- Small to medium traffic: Under 100k monthly visitors, the flat $20 is predictable
- Teams: Built-in collaboration features, deployment previews for PRs
- Peace of mind: No surprise bills, no debugging infrastructure
The Real Cost Comparison
Here's my honest assessment:
| Factor | AWS | Vercel |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly Cost (50k visitors) | $15-25 | $20 (flat) |
| Setup Time | 4-8 hours | 15 minutes |
| Maintenance | 1-2 hours/month | 0 hours |
| Predictability | Variable | Fixed |
| Scalability | Excellent | Excellent |
| Developer Experience | Complex | Excellent |
My Recommendation
For most projects, start with Vercel. The time savings and developer experience are worth the slight cost premium. If you grow to 500k+ monthly visitors or need specific AWS features, then migrate to AWS.
But here's the thing: both are great options. The "best" choice depends on your specific situation, traffic, and priorities.
Have your own cost comparison data? Get in touch.