Looking to choose between Crossplane and Terraform for managing your cloud infrastructure? Here's a quick breakdown:
- Crossplane integrates seamlessly with Kubernetes, offering continuous reconciliation to maintain infrastructure consistency. It's free under the Apache License 2.0 but requires a Kubernetes cluster, which adds infrastructure costs.
- Terraform is a standalone tool with a vast provider ecosystem, making it ideal for multi-cloud setups. It uses a
push
model for manual updates and has licensing costs, such as ~£29,000/year for Terraform Enterprise.
Key Differences:
- Cost: Crossplane is free; Terraform has licensing fees.
- Ease of Use: Terraform is simpler for teams without Kubernetes expertise.
- Performance: Crossplane continuously reconciles changes, while Terraform requires manual intervention.
- State Management: Crossplane uses Kubernetes' CRDs; Terraform relies on a central state file.
Quick Comparison
Feature | Crossplane | Terraform |
---|---|---|
Architecture | Kubernetes extension | Standalone tool |
Licensing | Free (Apache License 2.0) | Paid (e.g., ~£29,000/year for Enterprise) |
Execution Model | Continuous reconciliation | Manual execution |
State Management | Kubernetes CRDs (no separate file) | Central state file |
Ease of Use | Requires Kubernetes expertise | Easier for non-Kubernetes teams |
Provider Support | Kubernetes-focused | Broad provider ecosystem |
Which should you choose?
If you're already using Kubernetes, Crossplane's integration and automation might be a better fit. Otherwise, Terraform's simplicity and extensive provider support make it a strong choice for diverse multi-cloud environments.
Next: Dive into the detailed cost, performance, and multi-cloud suitability analysis.
Terraform vs Crossplane - Kat Cosgrove on which Infrastructure as Code (IaC) is Better
Crossplane and Terraform Overview
Choosing between Crossplane and Terraform requires an understanding of their core differences. These tools handle infrastructure management in distinct ways, with unique architectures and operating models that influence everything from deployment efficiency to maintenance effort.
What is Crossplane?
Crossplane is a Kubernetes-native control plane designed to manage cloud infrastructure using Kubernetes' declarative model [8]. Rather than functioning as an independent tool, Crossplane extends Kubernetes by introducing custom resource definitions (CRDs) that represent cloud resources like databases, storage, and virtual machines.
One of Crossplane's standout features is its continuous reconciliation model. After defining the desired state of your infrastructure, Crossplane actively monitors your resources and automatically corrects any deviations it detects [7]. For instance, if someone manually modifies a resource via the cloud provider's console, Crossplane identifies the change and restores the resource to its intended state - no manual intervention required.
Running within a Kubernetes cluster, Crossplane uses YAML manifests to define infrastructure. This setup allows platform teams to create reusable compositions, simplifying complex infrastructure patterns into accessible workflows for developers. For organisations already invested in Kubernetes, this integration can streamline operations significantly.
What is Terraform?
Terraform, on the other hand, is a standalone Infrastructure as Code (IaC) tool that uses HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL) to define infrastructure resources [6]. Unlike Crossplane, Terraform doesn't depend on Kubernetes and can operate on any machine with the Terraform binary installed.
Terraform employs a push model where changes occur only when you explicitly run terraform apply
. It uses a state file to track the current configuration of your infrastructure, enabling it to calculate and implement necessary changes when you update your configuration files.
A key strength of Terraform is its extensive provider ecosystem. With support for nearly every cloud service and numerous third-party tools, Terraform can manage a diverse range of infrastructure components. For example, a global e-commerce company leveraged Terraform to standardise deployments across AWS and Microsoft Azure. By codifying their infrastructure, they significantly reduced the time required to launch new regional storefronts - from weeks to just days [5].
Terraform also supports version control, peer reviews, and automated testing of infrastructure changes [5], which is particularly valuable for teams that prioritise stringent change management practices.
These contrasting approaches set the stage for a deeper side-by-side comparison.
Main Differences Between Crossplane and Terraform
For UK businesses navigating multi-cloud challenges, understanding these differences is essential. The architectural and operational distinctions of these tools directly influence costs, performance, and maintenance.
- Operating Model: Crossplane acts as a control plane within Kubernetes, running continuously, while Terraform is a command-line tool that interfaces with external control planes and operates on-demand [2].
- Reconciliation Approach: Crossplane offers continuous reconciliation, automatically addressing any drift [9]. Terraform, in contrast, requires manual intervention to detect and resolve drift, as its reconciliation is on-demand [9].
- State Management: Terraform relies on a state file to track infrastructure, which requires careful handling, especially in collaborative environments. Crossplane, however, stores state directly within Kubernetes as custom resources, eliminating the need for separate state file management [8].
- Configuration Language: Terraform uses HCL, which many find straightforward for defining infrastructure. Crossplane relies on YAML and Kubernetes manifests, making it a natural fit for teams experienced with Kubernetes.
Feature | Terraform | Crossplane |
---|---|---|
Architecture | Standalone tool | Kubernetes extension |
Configuration | HCL/JSON | YAML/JSON |
State Management | Central state file with backends | Controller-based reconciliation |
Execution Model | Command-triggered execution | Continuous reconciliation |
Licensing | BUSL (Business Source License) | Apache License 2.0 |
- Dependency Requirements: Terraform is lightweight, running on any machine without significant dependencies, making it suitable for teams without Kubernetes expertise. Crossplane, however, requires a Kubernetes cluster, which introduces additional infrastructure considerations but offers seamless integration for Kubernetes-centric organisations.
Ultimately, the choice between Crossplane and Terraform depends heavily on your team's existing infrastructure and expertise. With 89% of enterprises now adopting multi-cloud strategies [5], both tools present effective solutions for managing complexity, albeit with fundamentally different approaches.
Cost Analysis for Multi-Cloud Management
Let’s dive into the specific cost components of managing multi-cloud environments using Terraform and Crossplane. For businesses in the UK, the total cost of ownership goes far beyond just licensing fees. It also includes operational overheads, infrastructure expenses, and long-term maintenance.
Licensing Models and Cost Factors
Terraform's licensing model has shifted with its move to the Business Source License (BSL), departing from its earlier open-source roots. Meanwhile, Crossplane continues to be fully open source under the Apache License 2.0 [3]. When it comes to Terraform Cloud, pricing follows a Resources Under Management (RUM) model. The Standard tier costs approximately £0.00011 per hour per resource, with the first 500 resources included for free. Terraform Enterprise, on the other hand, averages around £29,000 per year, or roughly £11,800 annually when purchased through Azure Marketplace [3].
In contrast, Crossplane has no licensing fees, giving organisations more flexibility. However, running Crossplane requires a Kubernetes cluster, so the associated infrastructure costs must be factored in. For those looking for enterprise-level support, Upbound offers a managed Crossplane service with additional features, though pricing depends on the specific needs of the organisation [3].
Beyond licensing, operational and maintenance costs play a major role in determining the overall expenses.
Setup and Maintenance Costs
The costs of setting up and maintaining these tools go beyond their licensing models. Terraform's setup can become increasingly complex over time, often requiring refactoring as configurations grow. Its use of HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL) can also add training costs for teams unfamiliar with it. Additionally, Terraform’s on-demand
reconciliation approach can result in infrastructure drift when changes are made outside its management. This drift often requires manual intervention and extra monitoring to address [2].
Crossplane, on the other hand, is designed to simplify collaboration and maintain consistency, reducing the complexity of ongoing maintenance. Teams already experienced with Kubernetes can leverage their existing knowledge, cutting down on training needs. Crossplane's continuous control loops automatically undo unauthorised changes, preventing drift without the need for constant manual oversight. However, organisations without Kubernetes expertise may face additional costs to operate and manage the required cluster infrastructure.
Terraform’s reliance on its CLI and domain-specific language often necessitates custom scripting for automation, while Crossplane’s REST API offers a more straightforward integration path [2].
Here’s a quick breakdown of these cost factors:
Cost Comparison Table
Cost Factor | Terraform | Crossplane |
---|---|---|
Licensing | BSL – ~£0.00011/hour per resource (Standard) ~£29,000/year (Enterprise) |
Apache 2.0 – Free |
Infrastructure Requirements | Minimal – runs on most platforms | Requires a Kubernetes cluster |
Training Costs | Requires learning HCL | Demands Kubernetes familiarity |
State Management | Needs external state backends | Integrated with Kubernetes |
Drift Prevention | Manual monitoring often required | Automatic continuous reconciliation |
Integration Complexity | CLI and DSL may complicate automation | REST API simplifies automation |
Long-term Maintenance | Can grow more complex over time | Simplified by loose coupling |
Crossplane’s architecture also offers operational efficiencies, such as faster resource provisioning and lower memory and CPU usage compared to traditional methods [3]. For UK businesses operating at scale, these efficiencies can lead to measurable reductions in operational costs.
While the costs charged by cloud providers remain largely the same regardless of the tool, better resource management can impact overall spending. For businesses focused on cost efficiency, working with cloud cost engineering specialists - like Hokstad Consulting - can uncover the most economical strategies for multi-cloud deployments. In some cases, organisations have achieved savings of 30–50% by optimising their multi-cloud architecture.
Need help optimizing your cloud costs?
Get expert advice on how to reduce your cloud expenses without sacrificing performance.
Performance Analysis
In large-scale multi-cloud setups, performance plays a key role in ensuring smooth operations. Terraform employs an imperative workflow, while Crossplane relies on continuous reconciliation. These differing approaches create unique impacts on deployment speed, resource management, and overall efficiency.
Execution Models and Deployment Speed
Terraform operates with a procedural workflow that involves three key steps: initialisation, planning, and applying changes [4]. Administrators must explicitly run commands like terraform plan
to preview changes, followed by terraform apply
to implement them. This step-by-step process provides detailed control over infrastructure management, enabling teams to carefully manage each deployment phase [1].
However, this manual process can slow things down in dynamic environments that demand frequent updates or rapid scaling. Each reconciliation cycle requires manual intervention, which can lead to delays, particularly in fast-moving, multi-cloud environments [12].
Crossplane, on the other hand, uses a declarative, controller-driven model. Instead of relying on manual commands, Crossplane continuously manages and reconciles cloud resources based on predefined configurations [1].
This approach leverages Kubernetes' native capabilities to ensure that the actual state of resources matches the desired state, without requiring explicit rollouts [12]. For businesses in the UK managing complex multi-cloud infrastructures, this means quicker responses to changes and reduced manual workload.
Next, let's explore how these tools handle state management and detect drift.
State Management and Drift Detection
The differences in deployment speed extend to how Terraform and Crossplane manage state and handle drift. Terraform utilises a centralised state management system, often backed by remote storage with state locking capabilities [1]. Drift detection is performed by comparing the state file with live resource data and the desired configuration [9].
However, Terraform's drift detection is on-demand, requiring manual execution of commands like terraform plan
or terraform apply
[9]. Any discrepancies must be resolved manually, which can introduce delays in maintaining infrastructure consistency.
Crossplane takes a more proactive route with its controller-based continuous reconciliation [1]. It constantly monitors the state of resources against the desired configurations defined in Kubernetes Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs). By periodically querying cloud provider APIs, Crossplane automatically reconciles any discrepancies without requiring manual intervention [9].
This continuous monitoring approach significantly reduces the time between drift detection and correction. As Viktor Farcic noted [11], Crossplane's controller-driven design offers a sharp contrast to Terraform's command-line orchestration, enabling faster and more consistent state management.
Performance Comparison Table
Performance Factor | Terraform | Crossplane |
---|---|---|
Execution Model | Imperative, runs on command | Continuous reconciliation |
Deployment Trigger | Manual execution | Automatic, based on desired state |
State Handling | Central state management with backends | Controller-based continuous reconciliation |
Drift Detection | On-demand via manual commands | Continuous monitoring via Kubernetes CRDs |
Drift Correction | Manual execution required | Automatic reconciliation |
Workflow Complexity | Simple to understand | More complex due to Kubernetes setup |
Response Time | Relies on manual intervention | Immediate response to changes |
Scalability Architecture | Monolithic state file, limits collaboration | Loose coupling, easier collaboration |
For UK businesses operating at scale, Crossplane's loosely coupled architecture simplifies collaboration and enhances scalability [2]. It supports self-service infrastructure provisioning with role-based access control (RBAC) at the API level, improving both security and efficiency [2].
Terraform, meanwhile, shines with its extensive ecosystem, supporting over 3,000 providers [1]. Its modular approach, powered by HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL), allows teams to create reusable infrastructure modules [1]. However, its centralised state management can become a bottleneck as team sizes grow.
Ultimately, the choice between these tools depends on organisational priorities. Companies deeply integrated with Kubernetes will appreciate Crossplane's unified approach to managing both infrastructure and applications [1]. In contrast, organisations that require broad provider support and granular deployment control may lean towards Terraform's established ecosystem and procedural approach [1].
Selecting the right tool can enhance performance, speed up deployments, and reduce operational costs in the long run. For businesses looking to optimise their multi-cloud environments, consulting experts like Hokstad Consulting can help identify the best solution tailored to their unique needs and infrastructure.
Multi-Cloud Environment Suitability
Managing multi-cloud environments is no small task, especially for UK businesses that must juggle complex infrastructure and meet stringent regulatory standards. Tools like Crossplane and Terraform provide distinct solutions, each tailored to different organisational needs.
Multi-Cloud Support and Provider Integration
Terraform's extensive provider ecosystem makes it a strong contender for managing multi-cloud setups. With the ability to provision resources across a wide array of cloud providers and platforms [13], Terraform simplifies multi-cloud management by translating configurations into coordinated API calls through its well-established ecosystem [14].
Crossplane, on the other hand, adopts a Kubernetes-first approach. Designed to work seamlessly with any cloud provider [13], it streamlines multi-cloud management by treating cloud infrastructure as Kubernetes resources. Crossplane operates as Kubernetes operators, interacting with providers' REST APIs through a unified interface [9]. This makes it particularly appealing to organisations that already rely on Kubernetes and GitOps workflows [14].
The decision between these tools often comes down to your organisation's existing setup. Teams with Kubernetes expertise may lean toward Crossplane, while those requiring broader provider compatibility might favour Terraform. However, beyond integration, compliance with UK regulations is a critical factor.
UK Regulatory and Compliance Requirements
UK businesses face strict data, security, and audit requirements. Crossplane benefits from Kubernetes' built-in security features, including role-based access control (RBAC), network policies, and pod security standards - tools already familiar to many UK organisations [2]. By extending the Kubernetes API, Crossplane also facilitates the creation and management of cloud services while enabling direct manipulation of cloud data [15].
Terraform tackles compliance through its enterprise-grade features, such as enhanced security, audit logging, and policy enforcement available in Terraform Cloud & Enterprise. These capabilities are particularly useful for regulated industries. Both tools also support automated operations, monitoring, and logging - key components for maintaining compliance [15].
Tool Selection Guide for UK Businesses
Choosing the right tool involves weighing team expertise, compliance needs, and existing infrastructure. As discussed earlier, balancing cost, performance, and regulatory requirements is essential. With most organisations adopting multi-cloud strategies [16], UK businesses need clear criteria for selecting the best tool.
Team expertise and current infrastructure play a crucial role. If your team is well-versed in Kubernetes and you want a unified approach for managing infrastructure and applications, Crossplane could be the better option [1]. On the other hand, if you prioritise strong community support, comprehensive resources, and detailed documentation, Terraform is a reliable choice [1].
Flavius Dinu summarises the comparison well:
In the infrastructure as code (IaC) world, Terraform and Crossplane are both prominent tools... Both tools are used for infrastructure provisioning, but their features and design principles are different.[1]
Security remains a pressing issue for UK organisations, with 97% of stakeholders highlighting ongoing challenges in multi-cloud environments. Misconfigurations are the top concern (55%), followed by cost management (45%) and disaster recovery (42%) [16]. Businesses must also evaluate their internal expertise to avoid unexpected training and implementation costs tied to Kubernetes and multi-cloud operations [16].
For organisations navigating these decisions, external expertise can be invaluable. Hokstad Consulting offers tailored advice on optimising DevOps, cloud infrastructure, and hosting costs, ensuring alignment with UK regulations and business goals.
Ultimately, the choice between Crossplane and Terraform depends on your organisation's unique requirements, technical expertise, and long-term cloud strategy. Both tools are powerful, but their differing approaches cater to distinct organisational contexts and needs.
Conclusion
Main Findings
Crossplane and Terraform shine in different scenarios, each bringing unique strengths to the table. Terraform stands out for its ease of use, maturity, and fast deployments, backed by extensive provider support. On the other hand, Crossplane is better suited for Kubernetes-focused environments, offering continuous reconciliation and a native integration with Kubernetes. However, it does require a Kubernetes cluster to operate.
Crossplane is entirely open source under the Apache License 2.0, which eliminates licensing fees altogether [1]. Its controller-driven continuous reconciliation approach helps tackle state management issues that can sometimes challenge Terraform deployments [10]. That said, organisations must account for the additional infrastructure costs of running a Kubernetes cluster, a requirement that Terraform avoids when executed locally [1].
Performance-wise, Terraform follows an imperative execution model, while Crossplane uses continuous reconciliation to manage infrastructure in real-time, automatically addressing configuration drift [10]. These differences highlight the importance of aligning tool selection with your organisation’s needs. For UK businesses, the decision often depends on existing expertise: teams with a strong Kubernetes background may find Crossplane's declarative, YAML-based workflows more intuitive, while others might prefer Terraform’s detailed control and familiar processes.
How Consulting Helps with Tool Selection
Navigating the trade-offs between Crossplane and Terraform can be complex, and this is where external expertise becomes invaluable. Expert consultants can help organisations align tool selection with their broader strategies, making sense of these nuances while uncovering potential cost efficiencies.
Hokstad Consulting offers tailored services to optimise DevOps processes, cloud infrastructure, and hosting costs. Their offerings include detailed cloud cost audits, DevOps transformation strategies, and migration planning that adheres to UK regulatory standards. With a proven track record of reducing cloud costs by 30–50%, Hokstad Consulting provides the analytical tools necessary to evaluate solutions like Crossplane and Terraform within your unique operational framework.
For UK organisations, expert guidance is particularly valuable in navigating regulatory challenges and optimising cloud spending. By working with consulting professionals, businesses can better understand the technical trade-offs, perform comprehensive cost–benefit analyses, and implement strategies that reduce risks and improve efficiency.
FAQs
What should UK businesses consider when choosing between Crossplane and Terraform for managing multi-cloud environments?
When comparing Crossplane and Terraform, UK businesses need to weigh up both cost and performance to determine the right fit for their needs. Crossplane is open-source and free, which can make it an appealing option for organisations looking to keep expenses under control. On the other hand, Terraform includes enterprise-level features that come at an added cost, which could be a consideration for those managing tight budgets.
When it comes to performance, Terraform stands out for its ability to efficiently provision infrastructure. Its cloud-agnostic nature makes it a strong contender for businesses managing multi-cloud environments. Crossplane, however, is tailored for Kubernetes-native environments and supports GitOps workflows, making it particularly suitable for enterprises focused on containerised or cloud-native strategies.
Integration with existing systems is another key factor. Terraform has a proven track record of compatibility across a wide range of cloud providers. Meanwhile, Crossplane’s Kubernetes-native control plane offers a distinct advantage for organisations already working within Kubernetes ecosystems. Ultimately, the decision will hinge on your organisation’s infrastructure requirements and long-term goals.
How does Crossplane's continuous reconciliation model ensure infrastructure consistency compared to Terraform's manual approach?
Crossplane's continuous reconciliation model keeps a constant watch over your infrastructure, automatically correcting any deviations in real-time. This ensures everything stays aligned with the desired state, eliminating the need for manual fixes. It’s a smart way to reduce the risk of inconsistencies, especially in dynamic multi-cloud setups where changes can happen frequently.
On the other hand, Terraform relies on manual commands like terraform apply
to update infrastructure. If changes occur outside of these updates, it can lead to discrepancies, leaving room for human error. Crossplane's automated approach is an excellent fit for organisations aiming to maintain consistent infrastructure while cutting down on manual intervention.
What are the cost differences between using Crossplane in a Kubernetes environment and Terraform as a standalone tool?
Crossplane, being open-source, doesn't come with direct licensing fees. However, running it within a Kubernetes setup can lead to extra costs, particularly for managing Kubernetes clusters and the control plane. These expenses will depend on the scale and complexity of your infrastructure.
On the other hand, Terraform's pricing is a bit more straightforward. The open-source version is free, but if you opt for Terraform Enterprise, it will set you back roughly £30,000 annually. Terraform Cloud, meanwhile, charges about £0.00014 per resource per hour. While these costs might seem minimal at first glance, they can grow significantly as your usage scales.
For organisations already committed to Kubernetes, Crossplane might prove to be a more cost-efficient option. That said, Terraform's transparent pricing model makes it easier to predict and manage expenses based on your resource consumption.