DelhiStack
Home
PortfolioAboutBlogsContact
Get a Free Quote
DelhiStack

Delhi's premier digital agency. We design, build, and grow digital products for startups and enterprises worldwide.

Add us on Google Search

Services

  • Web Development
  • Mobile Apps
  • UI/UX Design
  • Digital Marketing
  • E-Commerce
  • Backend Dev
  • AI & Automation
  • Maintenance

Company

  • About Us
  • Portfolio
  • Case Studies
  • Pricing
  • Hire Developers
  • Compare
  • Blogs
  • Contact

Contact Us

+91 81780 39483help@delhistack.com
New Delhi, India - 110001
Mon-Sat: 9am - 7pm IST

© 2026 DelhiStack. All rights reserved.

Made with ❤️ in Delhi, India
Comparison Guide

Vercel vs AWS: Which is Right for Your Next.js App?

Where you deploy your Next.js application impacts your site speed, developer velocity, and infrastructure bill. Here is the 2026 breakdown of Vercel vs AWS hosting.

AVercel (Managed Hosting)

✓ Pros

  • Zero configuration: git push automatically deploys global preview links
  • Optimized out-of-the-box for Next.js features (ISR, Edge Functions)
  • Buttery smooth developer experience and dashboard
  • Built-in global CDN with excellent speed metrics

✕ Cons

  • Significantly higher bandwidth and serverless execution costs at scale
  • Can lead to vendor lock-in for advanced Edge features

BAWS (Custom Cloud)

✓ Pros

  • Significantly cheaper at scale (up to 70-80% lower bandwidth cost)
  • Full control over infrastructure, security, and VPC configs
  • Allows deploying Next.js via Docker on ECS/EKS or Serverless (OpenNext)
  • Easier integration with existing AWS services (RDS, S3, ElastiCache)

✕ Cons

  • Requires dedicated DevOps expertise to set up and manage
  • No native dashboard for preview deployments and rollbacks

At a glance

FactorVercel (Managed Hosting)AWS (Custom Cloud)
Setup timeMinutes — connect a Git repoDays to weeks, depending on stack
Next.js feature supportComplete and first-partyDepends on adapter (OpenNext, SST, Amplify)
Cost at low trafficFree to ~$20/monthOften a few dollars, plus your time
Cost at high trafficRises steeply, bandwidth-drivenMuch lower per unit, harder to predict
Ops burdenEffectively noneReal — you own the platform
Preview deploymentsAutomatic per pull requestBuild it yourself
Vendor lock-inModerate — some features are Vercel-specificLow at the framework level
Compliance / data residencyLimited controlFull control over region and account

You are choosing what to spend: money or engineering time

Vercel and AWS both run Next.js well. The honest framing is not which is technically superior but which resource you would rather spend. Vercel converts infrastructure work into a monthly bill. AWS converts a lower bill into engineering hours you have to staff.

For a startup with four engineers and no dedicated DevOps, Vercel is almost always correct, even at a headline price that looks high. The alternative is one of those four engineers spending a meaningful slice of their time on build pipelines, CDN configuration, and image optimisation — work that produces no product.

For a company with an existing AWS footprint and a platform team already on payroll, the calculus inverts. The marginal cost of adding a Next.js workload to infrastructure you already operate is small, and the Vercel bill starts looking like pure overhead.

Where the Vercel bill actually gets painful

The costs that surprise teams are rarely compute. They are bandwidth and image optimisation. A content-heavy or image-heavy site that grows into serious traffic can see its Vercel invoice climb faster than its revenue, because you are billed on data transferred rather than on servers running.

This is why the common trajectory is Vercel first, migrate later. That is a reasonable plan, but only if you avoid building deep dependencies on Vercel-specific primitives along the way. Keep your framework usage close to standard Next.js and the migration stays tractable.

It is worth running the numbers before you need to. If you can project traffic twelve months out, you can usually tell whether you will cross the threshold where AWS pays for the migration effort.

What running Next.js on AWS actually involves

There is no single AWS answer, which is itself part of the cost. The realistic options are OpenNext deployed via CDK or SST, AWS Amplify Hosting, or a container on ECS or Fargate behind CloudFront. Each has different gaps in Next.js feature coverage.

The features that most often break or lag on self-hosted setups are incremental static regeneration, image optimisation, middleware at the edge, and streaming. None are impossible, but each one is configuration you own and debug. When a new Next.js version changes their behaviour, that is your problem rather than your host's.

Containers on ECS avoid most of this by simply running the Next.js server, at the cost of losing edge distribution unless you put CloudFront in front and configure caching correctly.

Our default recommendation

Start on Vercel. The developer velocity gain is real and immediate, preview deployments genuinely improve review quality, and at early traffic the bill is trivial. Ship the product first.

Revisit when either your monthly bill exceeds what a fractional platform engineer would cost, or a compliance requirement forces you into a specific region or account. Both are clear, measurable triggers rather than vague future concerns.

The one case for starting on AWS is an existing AWS-committed organisation with a platform team and a spend commitment already in place. There, adding Next.js to what you run is genuinely cheaper on day one.

Frequently asked questions

Is Vercel just a wrapper around AWS?
Vercel runs substantially on AWS infrastructure, but calling it a wrapper undersells what you are paying for. The build pipeline, the routing layer, the ISR implementation, preview deployments, and the analytics are Vercel's own engineering. You are paying for that integration work, not for compute you could rent more cheaply.
At what traffic level should we migrate off Vercel?
There is no universal number because the driver is bandwidth, not visits. The practical trigger is when your monthly Vercel bill approaches the cost of the engineering time a migration and ongoing operation would consume — often somewhere in the low thousands of dollars per month. Track the bill against that comparison rather than against a traffic threshold.
Will we lose Next.js features by self-hosting?
Some, depending on the approach. ISR, edge middleware, and image optimisation are the usual friction points and need explicit configuration on AWS. OpenNext has closed much of this gap, but expect to own the debugging when Next.js releases change behaviour, and budget time for it in each upgrade.
Can we use both?
Yes, and it is a common pattern. Teams frequently keep the marketing site and preview environments on Vercel for velocity while running the authenticated application on AWS alongside their databases and internal services. It splits the bill sensibly and keeps sensitive workloads in your own account.
⚖️

The Verdict

Start with Vercel for fast prototyping, staging, and early-stage growth where developer velocity is the bottleneck. Once your traffic scales and your monthly Vercel bill grows, consider migrating the production build to AWS using tools like OpenNext to optimize hosting costs.

Hire with DelhiStack

Ready to Build
Something Great?

Tell us your idea. We'll turn it into a world-class digital product. Free consultation, no commitment.

Get a Free Quote
help@delhistack.com
✅ Free Consultation✅ NDA Available✅ No Hidden Charges✅ Agile Process