Azure Container Instances (ACI) vs Azure Container Apps (ACA)

A detailed comparison between Azure Container Instances (ACI) and Azure Container Apps (ACA) — from a software‑architect perspective.

What They Are

Azure Container Instances (ACI)

• The simplest way in Azure to run a container (or a container group) without managing VMs or orchestrators.
• You specify an image, CPU/memory, optional network, and Azure runs it.
• Typically used for ad‑hoc tasks, burst jobs, simple container workloads.

Azure Container Apps (ACA)

• A serverless container platform built on Kubernetes technologies (abstracted) with added features like autoscaling (via KEDA) and service‑to‑service communication (via Dapr).
• Built for microservices and event‑driven workloads.
• You deploy containers (or sets of containers) as “apps” with revisions, traffic splitting, and environments.

Key Differences

Architectural Nuances

• Kubernetes Access: ACA uses Kubernetes under the hood but doesn’t expose full cluster access (no CRDs, DaemonSets, or StatefulSets).
• Load Balancing: ACA includes ingress and traffic splitting; ACI needs custom configuration.
• Cold Starts: ACA can scale to zero (saving cost), but introduces startup latency.
• DevOps Integration: ACA supports revisions, deployments, and traffic routing directly from pipelines.
• Monitoring: ACA integrates with Azure Monitor and Log Analytics; ACI is more manual.
• Cost Efficiency: ACA wins for sporadic workloads; ACI wins for ultra‑short‑term jobs.

When you should pick one vs the other

• If you have a simple containerised task (e.g., a background job, processing script, transient workload) that doesn’t require autoscaling, service-mesh, microservices communication — go with ACI. It gives you minimal overhead, fast deployment, pay-per-use.

• If you are building a microservices-based module, expect variable load, want autoscaling, traffic splitting (canary/blue-green), want event-driven triggers, want service discovery/communication — go with ACA. For example: a new API service in Echo that needs to handle spikes, scale down to zero in idle time, integrate with event grid or queues.

• For your Echo product core baseline (which is established, standardised, maybe always running) and custom long-term projects where you might need full control over networking, stateful containers, complex orchestration, you might still evaluate AKS. But between ACI and ACA, ACA is likely the sweet spot for many of your microservices.

Nuances / caveats you should be aware of

• Though ACA is built on Kubernetes technologies, you don’t get direct access to the Kubernetes API in ACA. So if you require full Kubernetes ecosystem (custom CRDs, fine-grained cluster control, advanced networking such as DaemonSets, complex storage, etc) you’ll outgrow ACA.

Server Fault

• ACI’s simplicity comes with constraints: no built-in load-balancer, no built-in autoscale, no service orchestration — if you need any of that, you’ll either manage it yourself or choose ACA/AKS.

iaMachs

• Cold-start / scale-to-zero: In ACA you can scale to zero (which is cost-efficient) but there is some latency when scaling up from zero; is that acceptable in your customer scenario?

• For your DevOps pipeline: ACA gives you opportunities to manage “revisions” and traffic splitting which align with more progressive rollout strategies (canary, blue/green). For ACI you would need custom logic.

• Monitoring/observability: With ACA you get more built-in ecosystem for microservices; with ACI you’ll build more “by hand”.

• Cost modelling: If you have many small microservices each idle for most of the time, ACA’s scale-to-zero benefits matter. If you have containers that run 24/7 at stable load, perhaps a traditional VM or AKS node-pool might give better cost-predictability.

A decision-tree for your architecture

Here’s a quick decision tree you can use with your team when evaluating containerised workloads for Echo or custom projects:

1️⃣ Is the workload short-lived or triggered on-demand?
    → Yes → Use ACI

2️⃣ Does it need autoscaling, event triggers, or service communication?
    → Yes → Use ACA

3️⃣ Do you need full Kubernetes-level control?
    → Yes → Use AKS
    → No  → ACA likely fits best

Summary

• ACI = Fast, simple, single‑container workloads.
• ACA = Scalable, event‑driven microservices without managing Kubernetes.
• AKS = Full control, full complexity.

Recommended Strategy (for Architecture Teams)