When the subject of containerisation comes up in a project, it is easy to fall into the temptation of reaching for the most popular, but not necessarily the most optimal solution. For a Medtech client for whom stability, business continuity and security are key, we were looking for a platform that would not only meet the technological challenges, but also allow a reasonable cost calculation. And that is when two solutions came to the table: ECS and EKS.

Time to diagnose needs: ECS vs. EKS ​

In the first instance, I analyse the needs. The application works in an environment where patient data needs to be secured, systems need to be available 24/7 and every minute of downtime can cost not only money but also the health of patients. The solution is designed to help with:

• reducing operating costs,
• simplifying container management,
• compliance,
• the ability to implement changes to the application quickly,
• avoiding vendor lock-in.

We considered running a Kubernetes cluster through EKS, but doubts arose: does the team have enough resources to maintain such a complex infrastructure? Is it worth investing time in learning and configuration when there are simpler, cheaper alternatives?

The solution: how we made the choice ECS vs EKS ​

After a thorough comparison of options, I recommend Amazon ECS (Elastic Container Service). From a business perspective, this is a strategic decision. Why?

1. costs under control

ECS operates on a pay-as-you-go model – the customer only pays for what they actually consume. Unlike ECS, there are no additional subscription costs and the lack of complexity in configuration means less work for the team.

2. Greater control and easier adaptation

ECS allows you to tailor your infrastructure to the requirements of your project – both in terms of data protection compliance (RODO, HIPAA) and security. Access policies, logging and replication rules can be easily configured.

3. Multi-cloud without closing the door

ECS supports a multi-cloud strategy – giving the ability to run applications outside AWS as well, which in the long term gives the customer flexibility and independence from a single provider.

4. ease of integration with CI/CD

The client system requires frequent updates. ECS integrates seamlessly with tools such as Jenkins, GitLab CI/CD or CircleCI, which speeds up the implementation of changes and testing of new functionality.

Alternative: why not EKS? ​

Of course, I also considered Amazon EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service). It is a powerful tool, ideal for advanced applications, however:

• is more expensive, due to the cost of the cluster and the need for more computing power,
• requires greater technical competence, which increases the entry threshold and implementation time,
• is less flexible for legacy applications that the client uses in its environment,
• involves vendor lock-in if the customer decides to use native solutions only for AWS Kubernetes.

For our particular case – ECS was simply the more sensible choice.

Let’s talk business.

Effects: what has the client gained? ​

After implementing ECS, the client saw concrete business results:

• Reducing operating costs through automation and not having to maintain a complex infrastructure,
• Reduced time to implement new features thanks to automated CI/CD pipelines,
• Increased system reliability – applications run without interruption, even during periods of increased traffic,
• Better resource utilisation – ECS works well with stateless services such as APIs, caches and load balancers.

Summary: ECS vs. EKS – which will provide the foundation for a stable Medtech ​

The implementation of ECS in this project confirmed that well-chosen technology is not only a cost-saver, but also a guarantee of business continuity. For Medtech companies that do not want to overpay, need fast implementation and flexibility to grow – ECS can be the key to success.

It's a solution that allows you to focus on innovation rather than maintaining the environment. And that, after all, is what it's all about – for technology to support development, not block it.