“Nobody gets fired for buying IBM” was a popular expression in tech back in the 90s. It was a safe bet until it wasn’t. why? Because IBM’s R&D was spread too thin, its key tech aged badly, and more focused alternatives mushroomed slowly and then quickly sweeping them aside.
Today, this analogy applies to AWS’ streaming technology, much of which was modern a decade or more ago but today is unnecessarily complex and costly.
Putting aside complexity, let’s focus on costs for today.
How does it feel to pay $3050 to encode and stream a 1-minute video with AWS? A 1-min video, 1080p resolution, streamed at 5 Mbps to 500,000 monthly viewers. The same scenario with FastPix costs $407, which is exactly 77% cheaper.
Put differently, AWS is 4X more expensive than FastPix.
Some of this difference comes down to pricing in GB as AWS does Vs pricing in Mins as FastPix does.
TL;DR
Streaming costs on AWS often look manageable at first, but scale quickly turns them into a major expense. In a typical scenario, a 1-minute 1080p video streamed to 500,000 viewers, AWS can cost over 4× more than FastPix. This gap isn’t about discounts; it’s about architecture. AWS charges for every GB transferred across multiple services, while FastPix charges for actual minutes watched using a streaming-optimized pipeline with built-in encoding, packaging, and delivery.
As viewership grows, AWS costs rise sharply due to bandwidth, storage, and operational overhead, whereas FastPix maintains a more predictable and efficient pricing model. For teams building video-centric products, this means significantly lower costs, simpler infrastructure, and fewer engineering resources spent on maintaining complex streaming worklow.
The surprise AWS bill moment
You know the story, probably you would have heard it multiple times, the product launch goes well, marketing runs a campaign, and the videos get traction. Then the finance team drops an AWS bill on your desk.
It’s not a nice surprise.
Five figures.
Mostly bandwidth.
You check the bill: S3 egress + CloudFront delivery. The same setup you thought was “cheap and simple” for streaming a few videos is now a runaway line item. And worse , you’ve still got engineering hours sunk into glue code just to keep it running.
That’s the trap:AWS S3 feels like the easy option for video delivery, until scale turns convenience into a budget leak.
Let’s run the numbers
Let’s take a Standard use case and run the numbers
No edge cases, no cherry-picking*
- Video length: 1 min
- Resolution: 1080p at 5 Mbps
- Monthly views: 500,000
- Average completion rate: 100%
- 5 Mbps ÷ 8 = 0.625 MB/s
- 0.625 MB/s × 60 seconds = 37.5MB per view
- 500,000 × 37.5 MB =18,750GB/month delivered
| What the costs on AWS S3 | What That Costs on AWS S3 + CloudFront | What that costs on FastPix |
|---|---|---|
|
AWS S3 standard list pricing: ●$0.09/GB for first 10TB ● $0.085/GB for next 40TB Cost calculation: ● First 10TB (10,000 GB) × $0.09 = $900 ● Next 10,000 GB × $0.085 = $850 Total: $1750/month (storage + delivery) CloudFront pricing: ● 1TB free ● $0.085/GB next 9TB ● $0.08/GB next 40TB Cost calculation: ● 18,750GB billable ● 10TB × $0.085 = $850 ● 10TB × $0.08 = $800 Total: $1,650/month Cost - (500,000 VIEWS * 1 MINUTES * 100% DELIVERED = 1,000,000 TOTAL MIN) With 26,042 free delivery mins Total: $407 Too many people believe they can stream with just S3 (hence the reason for above inclusion). Then there are others who learn CloudFront can be handy. So, both scenarios are shown here. With the latter you save $100, but now you’re running two services, with two sets of configs and failure points. A quick note – Just S3 and CloudFront are insufficient for modern streaming. More like you need 7-10 different AWS products to what FastPix’ s one platform does. The FastPix model: Pay for minutes watched, not GB transferredFastPix bills on minutes delivered, not raw GB. You pay for what people actually watch — storage and delivery included.
That’s ~70% less than S3 and 68% less than S3 + CloudFront. Why the gap exists (Architecture, not discounts)AWS S3 + CloudFront is general-purpose. It charges for every byte sent, whether viewers watch 5 seconds or the whole video. FastPix is streaming-native:
This isn’t a temporary pricing hack — it’s a fundamentally more efficient delivery model. The scaling penalty: When success gets expensiveAt 500k views, the AWS bill stings. At 5M views, it’s painful.
 The lock-in problemHyperscalers love commitment. Not just the “we’ll send you a holiday card” kind — but the kind that ties you to a contract for 12, 24, sometimes even 36 months. It’s sold as “preferred pricing,” but it’s a handcuff. Once you’re in, migrating out isn’t just switching services — it’s unwinding months of engineering work, rewriting integrations, and renegotiating internal timelines. So let’s run the numbers for a 12-month lock-in where your viewership grows 10% month-over-month.  The strategic takeaway for CTOs and CEOsIf you’re paying per GB for streaming, you’re paying for:
FastPix changes the economic model and that’s why the price gap is structural, not temporary. What to do nextRun your own numbers: If your AWS bill for video delivery is over $2k/month, let’s model it against FastPix. We’ll show your actual savings, factoring in both direct costs and operational time. Every month you wait is another AWS bill you didn’t need to pay. Get a custom cost breakdown → Talk with our engineers and uncover your real savings potential. Author  Vijay SripadaMarketing Lead Join Our Video Streaming NewsletterAPIs & SDKs FOR DEVELOPERS On-demand Video Build HQ videos into your product, faster In-video AI Make your video assets searchable Live Streaming Stream to millions globally, just in min Cloud Playout Program, deliver, & monetize channels Video Data QoE analytics to track video interactions Programmable Video Player Wow! audiences on every screen FEATURES Understand the possibilities FEATURES DEVELOPERS ADDITIONAL HELP SOCIAL MEDIA |
