Open-source tools often outpace proprietary solutions in popularity due to their flexibility and community-driven development. However, the situation can be a bit more complex when discussing two leading infrastructure-as-code (IaC) tools, Terraform and CloudFormation. Choosing between Terraform and CloudFormation requires careful consideration of an organization’s specific needs and cloud infrastructure management strategy.
Terraform continues to hold a commanding market share, but this does not mean that CloudFormation lacks appeal. As AWS’s native IaC tool, CloudFormation stands out with features and integrations that make it the strongest choice for provisioning in AWS-exclusive environments. It is the go-to option for enterprises that intend to rely on Amazon’s cloud ecosystem almost entirely and enjoy the conveniences of proprietary services.
To help you decide which tool is the most suitable for your use case, here’s a rundown of three key differences between Terraform and CloudFormation. These general points of comparison make it easier to decide which tool to use, especially for organizations that need to align their infrastructure-as-code strategy with long-term DevOps efficiency strategies.
Table of Contents
Cloud Agnostic or AWS-Centric
Arguably, the biggest deciding factor in the CloudFormation vs. Terraform debate is the user’s cloud environment. Organizations in multi-cloud environments often prefer Terraform for its broad platform support and adaptability. Its multi-cloud capabilities allow it to support a broad range of cloud platforms, including AWS. This flexibility is essential for enterprises to efficiently deploy infrastructure across different cloud environments. Terraform provides a standardized but versatile tool to rapidly deploy and manage multiple clouds.
CloudFormation, on the other hand, is a polar opposite of the multi-cloud strategy. It is deeply integrated with Amazon Web Services, which is either an advantage or a deal-breaking disadvantage for organizations. It is designed to optimize AWS services, which means that it works with AWS better than any other solution can. It fully integrates with AWS services like EC2 instances, Lambda functions, EBS volumes, and various database and networking tools, ensuring optimal performance.
The challenge with an AWS-centric system is that it may not be the right choice for enterprises that plan to embrace multi-cloud in the future. Relying exclusively on AWS may pose challenges in the long term, particularly for organizations aiming to expand into multi-cloud setups.
Vendor lock-in has its risks and drawbacks, especially in terms of expansion and innovation. Organizations that are already deeply integrated with the Amazon ecosystem may not see these concerns, though, especially if they have already decided to stick to AWS in the long haul.
State File or Native Infrastructure State Management
Another crucial difference between Terraform and CloudFormation is the need to manage a state file. Terraform entails the management of a state file, which is vital in tracking the current state of an organization’s infrastructure.
Meanwhile, there is no state management task in CloudFormation because infrastructure state is managed natively in AWS. Managing state files adds complexity to IaC workflows, particularly in collaborative settings where secure handling and synchronization are critical. It is a complex task that can also complicate security.
After all, the state file generally holds sensitive infrastructure information such as resource IDs and credentials. Thus, it requires meticulous security handling, and the slightest negligence can severely compromise infrastructure security. It also means remote backend complexity, particularly when it comes to configuration and authentication.
Nevertheless, state file management in Terraform ensures flexibility, portability, granular control, drift detection, and precise state rollback and recovery. With CloudFormation, the absence of state file management means that there is no need to manually oversee and secure state files. The AWS IaC solution tracks resource configurations and changes directly within AWS through stacks specifically designed to manage the state of deployments.
However, this approach may lack the flexibility and precision required for intricate infrastructure management. The absence of a state file means limited visibility and control, creating the possibility of a “black box” problem wherein there is limited knowledge and control over the exact infrastructure state. This can make it harder to troubleshoot issues and evaluate the impact of configuration changes.
It’s a choice between flexibility and precision over ease of use and convenience. Each side has its pros and cons. DevOps teams have to evaluate the state file management question in the context of their requirements and preferences.
Different Approaches in Compliance and Security
CloudFormation is usually the preferred choice when it comes to compliance and security as far as convenience and ease are concerned. However, both solutions can provide similar security functionalities through IAM roles and policies, security groups, encryption, logging, monitoring, and security audits. The difference is in how these security features are implemented.
As an originally open-source tool, Terraform employs a more intricate security paradigm, requiring third-party plugin modules and external integrations. There are more security steps to take in Terraform, especially regarding the security of state files. It is important to pay close attention to state file encryption, access control limits, and the use of a remote backend such as Terraform Cloud and Consul to ascertain secure state file storage.
These considerations entail significant risks, given how complexities often spawn vulnerabilities and security loopholes. However, in the hands of an experienced and proficient IaC team, the complexity is unlikely to become a problem.
CloudFormation streamlines infrastructure management and ensures regulatory compliance through its deep AWS integration and robust security measures. One is CloudFormation’s ability to leverage native AWS IAM policies and role policies, security groups, and AWS config rules. This ensures robust security without the need to deploy third-party or additional tools.
Also, CloudFormation comes with built-in encryption, logging and monitoring, and policy-as-code through CloudFormation Guard. Secondly, CloudFormation templates and workflows are entirely stored within the AWS infrastructure. This simplifies security management and compliance.
In Summary
Both Terraform and CloudFormation can provide adequate security and compliance, albeit in different approaches and levels of complexity. State file management or the lack thereof has its pros and cons. However, the question of multi-cloud operation and AWS exclusivity may not be as simple as it seems. The choice between Terraform and CloudFormation is not that difficult unless an organization has plans to eventually pursue a multi-cloud strategy in the future.
Notably, most organizations favor multi-cloud and hybrid environments for their flexibility and resilience. It is understandable that many enterprises are drawn to the convenience and stability of the AWS ecosystem. CloudFormation is the logical choice for organizations committed to operating exclusively within the AWS ecosystem. Otherwise, the once open-source option is preferable.
Ultimately, enterprises have to weigh their options carefully by taking into account their organization’s cloud strategy, team expertise, specific project requirements, and long-term practicality.