Cloudflare Containers
Fewer than 5 people recommend it so far, so there's no written verdict. Here is what commenters said.
4recommend
1warn against
Nov 24, 2025first mention
Jun 20, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“for bursty, infrequent workloads that already use R2 for storage, Containers are a natural fit.”
runs VideoToBe in productionon “Offloading FFmpeg with Cloudflare”
“This is the perfect use of cloudflare containers.”
Show 2 more
“Should be possible with this, no?”
“Cloudflare Containers is literally "pay for usage", while AWS is pay for capacity.”
Caveats and dissent
“We also tried Cloudflare Containers, but they weren’t as reliable as just spinning up a small VM.”
form builder developer
Often compared with
Who recommends it in their own words
Threads where it came up
- Temporary Cloudflare Accounts for AI Agents 2 mentions
- Offloading FFmpeg with Cloudflare 2 mentions
- item 48208834 1 mention
- Show HN: Img-src – $5/month image CDN with on-the-fly transforms via URL params 1 mention
- Nobody Likes Lag: How to Make Low-Latency Dev Sandboxes 1 mention
- Doom in Django: testing the limits of LiveView at 600.000 divs/segundo 1 mention
Data: cloudflare-containers.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 9
“I run workers and containers and am curious what you mean.”
“What advantage does decoupling Cloudflare Containers from Cloudflare Workers have?”
“We also tried Cloudflare Containers, but they weren’t as reliable as just spinning up a small VM.”
“for bursty, infrequent workloads that already use R2 for storage, Containers are a natural fit.”
“This is the perfect use of cloudflare containers.”
“deployed it on Cloudflare Containers”
“I use cloudflare containers”
“Should be possible with this, no?”
“Cloudflare Containers is literally "pay for usage", while AWS is pay for capacity.”