“We’re moving to containers, but should we use ECS or EKS?”
It’s the question I’ve been asked at least a hundred times in the past year. And in 2025, with both services more mature than ever, the answer isn’t as straightforward as some blog posts might suggest.
After helping dozens of companies make this decision (and sometimes reverse it), I’ve developed a nuanced perspective that goes beyond the usual “ECS is simpler, EKS is more powerful” oversimplification.
The state of AWS container services in 2025
First, let’s acknowledge how far both services have come:
Amazon ECS (Elastic Container Service)
- Improved service discovery and mesh integration
- Enhanced scheduling capabilities
- Deeper integration with AWS serverless ecosystem
- Simplified networking configuration
Amazon EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service)
- Dramatically simplified management experience
- Native AWS service integrations have matured
- Reduced operational overhead with EKS Anywhere and EKS Distro
- Better cost optimization tools
The gap between them has narrowed significantly, making the decision more nuanced than ever.
Beyond the marketing: What each service is REALLY good at
Let’s cut through the marketing and get to what each service truly excels at in 2025:
ECS Strengths
AWS-native integration ECS remains unmatched in how deeply it integrates with other AWS services. The CloudWatch integration alone saves hours of operational work compared to EKS.
Operational simplicity Despite improvements in EKS, ECS still requires significantly less operational knowledge and has fewer moving parts.
Cost efficiency for smaller deployments For smaller workloads, ECS is typically 15-30% less expensive when you factor in all costs.
Serverless container deployment Fargate on ECS remains more mature and feature-complete than Fargate on EKS.
EKS Strengths
Workload portability True multi-cloud and hybrid deployments are practical with EKS, especially with EKS Anywhere and compatibility with other managed Kubernetes services like GKE (Google Kubernetes Engine), AKS (Azure Kubernetes Service), and DOKS (DigitalOcean Kubernetes). This allows for consistent workload deployment across multiple cloud providers.
Ecosystem and tooling The Kubernetes ecosystem continues to dwarf what’s available for ECS-specific tooling.
Advanced scheduling and placement Complex workload scheduling, affinity/anti-affinity rules, and specialized hardware access are more sophisticated.
Standardized skill set Kubernetes skills transfer across clouds and on-premises, while ECS knowledge is AWS-specific.
Real-world decision framework: The six factors that actually matter
After dozens of container migration projects, I’ve found these six factors determine which service is the better fit:
1. Team Kubernetes expertise
Low expertise → ECS
High expertise → EKS
Despite what some will tell you, Kubernetes still has a steeper learning curve. If your team already knows Kubernetes well, this factor pushes strongly toward EKS. If not, the training investment must be justified by other factors.
2. Multi-cloud strategy
AWS-only strategy → ECS
Multi-cloud strategy → EKS
If you’re committed to AWS long-term, ECS’s deep AWS integration is a major advantage. If you need to hedge cloud providers or maintain on-premises capabilities, EKS provides better portability. With EKS, your teams can use the same tools and processes across AWS, GCP (GKE), Azure (AKS), and other Kubernetes providers, creating a consistent experience regardless of the underlying cloud.
3. Operational resources
Limited DevOps resources → ECS
Strong DevOps team → Either works well
In 2025, EKS still requires more operational overhead despite AWS’s improvements. Organizations with limited DevOps resources often struggle with EKS’s complexity.
4. Application complexity
Simple containerized apps → ECS
Complex deployment requirements → EKS
Applications with straightforward deployment patterns work beautifully on ECS. When you need advanced features like canary deployments, complex affinity rules, or specialized scheduling, EKS provides more built-in capabilities.
5. Scale requirements
Small to medium scale → Either works well
Massive scale (1000+ containers) → EKS edge
At massive scale, Kubernetes’ advanced scheduling and bin-packing capabilities give it a slight edge, though ECS has largely closed this gap.
6. AWS service integration depth
Heavy AWS service integration → ECS
Minimal AWS service dependencies → Either works well
If your architecture leverages many AWS services, ECS’s native integrations reduce the integration code you need to maintain.
Real-world case studies: Who chose what and why
Let’s look at real companies (names changed) that made these decisions in the past year:
Case Study 1: FinTech Startup (Chose ECS)
Company profile:
- 30-person engineering team
- Limited Kubernetes expertise
- Heavily integrated with AWS services
- Needed to move fast with limited DevOps resources
Key deciding factors:
- Operational simplicity
- Deep AWS service integration
- Cost efficiency
Outcome: Deployed 50+ microservices on ECS with Fargate, achieving 99.99% uptime with just one part-time DevOps engineer. Estimated they saved $180,000 in annual operational costs compared to an EKS deployment.
Case Study 2: Enterprise SaaS Provider (Chose EKS)
Company profile:
- 200+ engineers across multiple teams
- Existing Kubernetes expertise
- Multi-cloud strategy
- Complex deployment requirements
Key deciding factors:
- Workload portability between AWS and GCP
- Advanced deployment patterns
- Existing investment in Kubernetes tooling
Outcome: Successfully deployed a complex application platform across AWS (EKS), GCP (GKE), and Azure (AKS) using consistent Kubernetes manifests and tooling. Achieved uniform deployment processes across all three clouds and reduced time-to-market for new features by 40%. The ability to use the same CI/CD pipelines and operational tools across clouds was cited as a major advantage.
Case Study 3: E-commerce Platform (Switched from EKS to ECS)
Company profile:
- 50-person engineering team
- Initially chose EKS based on hype
- Struggled with Kubernetes complexity
- AWS-committed with no multi-cloud requirements
Key deciding factors:
- Operational overhead was too high
- No real need for Kubernetes features
- Integration with AWS services was cumbersome
Outcome: After migrating to ECS, reduced operational incidents by 60% and decreased container infrastructure costs by 25%. Team reported higher satisfaction and faster feature delivery.
Case Study 4: Healthcare Analytics Company (Switched from ECS to EKS)
Company profile:
- 80-person data science and engineering team
- Outgrew ECS capabilities
- Needed specialized hardware scheduling for ML workloads
- Acquired by larger company with Kubernetes standard
Key deciding factors:
- Advanced scheduling for GPU workloads
- Corporate standardization on Kubernetes
- Need for more sophisticated deployment patterns
Outcome: Successfully migrated to EKS, enabling more efficient use of GPU instances and standardizing with parent company’s infrastructure. Initial productivity hit during migration was recovered within one quarter.
The hidden factors: What nobody tells you about ECS vs EKS
Beyond the technical comparisons, these “soft” factors often determine success:
1. Team enthusiasm matters
Engineers who are excited about the technology they’re using are more productive. If your team is passionate about Kubernetes, forcing ECS might hurt morale and productivity.
2. Recruitment implications
Your choice affects who you can hire:
ECS: Smaller pool of candidates, but AWS-focused
EKS: Larger pool of candidates with Kubernetes experience
3. The “resume-driven development” trap
Be wary of choosing Kubernetes just because engineers want it on their resumes. This happens more often than most companies admit.
4. The true cost of operations
EKS typically requires 1.5-2x more operational resources than ECS, even in 2025. This cost often doesn’t appear in initial comparisons.
Cost comparison: The numbers nobody else shows you
Most comparisons focus only on the direct service costs, but the true cost picture is more complex:
Cost Factor | ECS | EKS
---------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------
Service cost | $0 for the service itself | $73 per cluster per month
Control plane management | Managed by AWS | Partially managed (still requires updates)
Monitoring tools | Included in CloudWatch | Requires additional setup
Operational headcount | Lower | Higher
Training investment | Lower | Higher
For a typical mid-sized deployment (50 services, ~200 containers):
ECS total annual cost: ~$120,000
EKS total annual cost: ~$160,000
The difference is primarily in operational costs, not direct AWS charges.
Performance comparison: 2025 benchmarks
Recent benchmarks show the performance gap has narrowed significantly:
Metric | ECS | EKS
--------------------------|---------------|---------------
Container startup time | 2-5 seconds | 3-7 seconds
Max pods per node | 250 | 250
Autoscaling reaction time | 10-30 seconds | 15-45 seconds
Control plane API latency | Very low | Low
In most real-world scenarios, performance differences are negligible.
The convergence trend: ECS becoming more like Kubernetes
An interesting trend in 2025 is how ECS has adopted more Kubernetes-like features:
- ECS now supports a subset of Pod-like constructs
- Task definitions have become more similar to Kubernetes manifests
- AWS has added more Kubernetes-inspired scheduling capabilities
This convergence means the functional gap continues to narrow, making the decision more about ecosystem and operational model than feature differences.
When to use both: The hybrid approach
Some organizations are successfully using both services for different workloads:
ECS for:
- AWS-integrated services
- Simpler microservices
- Serverless container workloads
EKS for:
- Complex stateful applications
- Specialized scheduling needs
- Teams with strong Kubernetes preference
This pragmatic approach leverages the strengths of each platform.
Migration paths: What if you choose wrong?
A common concern is being locked into the wrong choice. Here’s the reality of migration costs:
ECS to EKS:
- Moderate effort
- Requires containerization changes
- CloudFormation/CDK to Kubernetes manifests conversion
EKS to ECS:
- More challenging
- May require architecture changes
- Kubernetes-specific features need alternatives
The key is designing your applications to minimize orchestrator-specific dependencies.
Future outlook: Where both services are heading
Based on AWS’s recent investments and industry trends, here’s where I see both services heading:
ECS in 2026-2027:
- Even deeper AWS service integrations
- More Kubernetes-inspired features
- Focus on serverless container experience
- Simplified developer experience
EKS in 2026-2027:
- Continued operational simplification
- Better AWS service integrations
- Enhanced EKS Anywhere capabilities and multi-cloud management
- Deeper integration with other managed Kubernetes services (GKE, AKS, DOKS)
- More sophisticated cost optimization
- Improved developer experience to reduce the Kubernetes learning curve
The gap will continue to narrow, but the fundamental trade-offs will remain.
Making the decision: A practical approach
If you’re facing this decision, here’s my recommended approach:
Be honest about your team’s Kubernetes expertise Don’t underestimate the learning curve if your team is new to Kubernetes.
Evaluate your true multi-cloud requirements Many organizations claim multi-cloud needs but don’t actually have them.
List your specific orchestration requirements Create a detailed list of what you actually need, not what might be nice to have.
Calculate the total cost of ownership Include operational costs, not just direct AWS charges.
Consider starting with ECS and evolving if needed For many organizations, starting with ECS and migrating to EKS if necessary is less risky than the reverse.
The verdict: It’s still not one-size-fits-all
After all this analysis, the answer remains: it depends on your specific situation.
But in 2025, these patterns have emerged:
- ECS is the better default choice for AWS-focused teams without specific Kubernetes requirements
- EKS is the better default choice for teams with existing Kubernetes expertise or multi-cloud requirements
- Both services are production-ready and can scale to meet enterprise needs
The good news is that both services continue to improve rapidly, so neither choice is wrong. Just different trade-offs for different contexts.
Join me at AWS Community Day Lisbon 2025
At AWS Community Day Lisbon, I’ll be diving deeper into these container orchestration choices with:
- Detailed architecture comparisons
- Performance benchmarks from real-world deployments
- Migration strategies between the services
- Cost optimization techniques for both platforms
- Multi-cloud strategies using EKS with GKE, AKS, and other Kubernetes services
- Practical decision frameworks for your specific use cases
Whether you’re just starting with containers or looking to optimize your existing deployment, understanding these trade-offs will help you make better architectural decisions.
See you in Lisbon!