cloudno.de vs Northflank Containers
A detailed comparison to help you choose between cloudno.de and Northflank Containers.
Quick Verdict
3.0/5
cloudno.de
0 reviews
3.9/5
Northflank Containers
0 reviews
Northflank Containers is rated higher (3.9 vs 3.0). German managed PaaS for Node.js apps: Git-push deploys, CouchDB/MongoDB/Redis data layer, S3-compatible object storage and Parse Server mobile backends, from Microlog GmbH. Northflank provides container deployments with automatic Docker image builds from GitHub, background workers, cron jobs, and secret management. Kubernetes-powered with a developer-friendly interface.
cloudno.de Deploy Node.js apps with minimal infrastructure overhead | Northflank Containers Container deployments with built-in CI/CD | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Rating | 3.0 (0 reviews) | 3.9 (0 reviews)✓ |
| Pricing model | freemium | freemium |
| Starting price | Free tier available | Free tier available |
| Best for | Individual developers and small teams running low-traffic Node.js apps, bots and Parse-based mobile backends who want a cheap European PaaS | Engineering teams wanting Heroku-grade developer experience with Kubernetes-grade control: GitHub-to-deployment pipelines with per-PR previews, multi-cloud deployment including your own VPC, and GPU/AI workloads on the same platform. |
| Features | ||
| IPv6 | ||
| DDoS protection | ✓ | |
| Automated backups | ||
| Snapshots | ||
| Managed option | ||
| Bare metal | ||
| GPU available | ||
| S3-compatible | ||
| Hourly billing | ✓ | |
| Free tier | ||
| Tags | ||
| Tags | free tiereu datacentergdpr compliant | free tiermanaged optionteam featuresapi accesskubernetes support |
| Visit cloudno.de → | Visit Northflank Containers → | |
cloudno.de
Pros
- + Very low entry price — Plus at €2/month (billed per year) for 3 apps
- + Real data layer: CouchDB, MongoDB, Redis and S3-compatible object storage included
- + Free plan exists as a starting point with an upgrade path on the same platform
- + German company under German law; 99.5% availability commitment published in the terms
- + Git-push workflow, WebSockets, custom domains and SSL handled at the platform level
Cons
- - No published infrastructure, data-center locations or per-plan resource specs
- - Terms of service dated 2013; public activity and third-party coverage thin in recent years
- - 99.5% availability commitment is below modern market standard, with documented traffic sharing under load
- - PayPal-only billing; email and Slack support, no enterprise tier
- - 'Medium' and 'large' app sizes undefined; free-tier and Ultimate-tier limits unpublished
Northflank Containers
Pros
- + Per-second, usage-based pricing with published unit rates and no seat fees
- + Real free Sandbox: 2 services, 2 jobs, 1 database, up to $20/mo resources, always-on compute
- + BYOC runs the platform in your AWS/GCP/Azure/Oracle VPC while you keep your cloud commitments
- + Strong CI/CD: per-PR preview environments, stored builds with rollback, release pipelines
- + GPU workloads (L4/A100/H100), Jupyter, secure code execution, RWX volumes: AI-ready beyond typical PaaS
- + UI, CLI, API, and GitOps control surfaces with RBAC, secrets, and audit-oriented enterprise features
Cons
- - Young company (founded 2019, Series A): less operational track record than incumbents
- - Contractual SLA and 24/7 support are Enterprise-only
- - Storage, IOPS, throughput, egress, and gateway line items stack up on database-heavy architectures
- - Card/payment-method requirement for the free tier conflicts between the pricing page and billing docs
- - Deep platform abstraction means application-level lock-in even with BYOC
- - Documentation is thorough on features but thin on migration patterns and BYOC networking edge cases
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new hosting and infrastructure providers, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.