DEV Community: Harsh Kanani

I Tested a Heroku Alternative With a FastAPI App, No Docker Setup Needed

Harsh Kanani — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 04:50:54 +0000

I wanted to deploy a FastAPI application without turning deployment into a separate infrastructure project. The application was already working locally. It had a small API, environment variables, a health endpoint, and a database connection planned for the production version.

What it did not have was a Dockerfile, infrastructure manifest, or manually created deployment configuration.

I wanted to test whether a modern Heroku alternative could begin with the application repository, understand the project, and prepare the deployment without requiring me to containerize it first.

After reviewing this broader comparison of Heroku alternatives, I tested the repository with Kuberns.

The FastAPI application I used

The project was intentionally small, but it had the same basic structure as a larger backend service.

fastapi-app/
├── app/
│   ├── __init__.py
│   └── main.py
├── requirements.txt
└── README.md

The application contained a root endpoint, a health endpoint, and one environment-based setting.

import os

from fastapi import FastAPI

app = FastAPI(title="FastAPI Deployment Test")

APP_ENV = os.getenv("APP_ENV", "development")


@app.get("/")
def read_root():
    return {
        "message": "FastAPI is running",
        "environment": APP_ENV,
    }


@app.get("/health")
def health_check():
    return {
        "status": "healthy",
    }

The dependencies were defined in requirements.txt.

fastapi
uvicorn[standard]

For a production application, I would pin dependency versions using the project’s chosen dependency-management workflow. This keeps builds reproducible and prevents an unexpected package update from changing application behavior.

What I deliberately did not add

I did not create a Dockerfile. I also did not add a platform-specific manifest, manually configure a server, or write a deployment pipeline before connecting the repository.

Those files can be useful when a team needs detailed infrastructure control. But they also create configuration that someone must understand and maintain.

My question was simple:

Can the deployment platform understand a normal FastAPI repository and prepare what it needs without making Docker knowledge a requirement?

Why this matters for FastAPI developers

Running FastAPI locally is straightforward. Production deployment introduces a different set of concerns. The platform needs to identify the Python application, install the required packages, determine how the service should start, expose it correctly, apply environment values, and provide enough visibility to understand the deployment.

Developers also need to verify that the application responds after deployment. A successful build does not automatically mean the API, database connection, authentication, or external integrations are working.

Traditional infrastructure workflows often require developers to translate these requirements into Docker, server, networking, or CI/CD configuration.

I wanted the platform to handle more of that translation while still allowing me to review the result.

Why I was looking beyond Heroku

Heroku helped make application deployment easier for developers who did not want to manage servers manually. On February 6, 2026, Heroku announced its move to a sustaining engineering model. The core platform is now focused on stability, security, reliability, and support rather than introducing new features.

That does not mean an existing FastAPI application should leave Heroku without a clear reason.

For a new project, I wanted to evaluate a platform designed around the way developers build and deploy applications today. That includes multiple frameworks, full-stack products, complex backends, and repositories that may not already contain infrastructure configuration.

Connecting the repository to Kuberns

Kuberns is an Agentic AI platform for deployment.

The process started by connecting the source repository and selecting the branch I wanted to deploy. Kuberns then analyzed the project. The agentic AI examined the repository and prepared the deployment configuration based on the application it found.

I did not need to decide how to containerize the FastAPI service or begin by creating infrastructure resources manually. Once the analysis was complete, I could review the deployment configuration from the dashboard before starting the deployment.

That review step is important. Agentic deployment should not mean that developers lose visibility. I still wanted to confirm that the platform had understood the application correctly before allowing it to run in a production-style environment.

Adding environment variables

The test application required one environment value:

APP_ENV=production

I added it through the dashboard rather than placing it inside the repository.

A real FastAPI application may require additional values such as:

DATABASE_URL
SECRET_KEY
ALLOWED_ORIGINS
EMAIL_API_KEY

These values should never be committed directly to Git.

The platform can analyze the application structure, but it cannot invent or safely infer private credentials. Supplying and protecting those values remains the developer’s responsibility.

Reviewing the deployment from the dashboard

After starting the deployment, I could follow the process from the Kuberns dashboard. The useful part was having the project analysis, deployment configuration, build progress, and runtime information available through one workflow.

If the deployment failed, I would first determine which stage caused the problem.

A dependency failure would suggest an issue with requirements.txt. An application startup failure could indicate an import problem or incorrect runtime behavior. A runtime error after deployment might point to a missing environment value or an unavailable external service.

This distinction helps avoid random configuration changes.

Instead of rebuilding the infrastructure from scratch, the developer can use the dashboard information to identify whether the problem belongs to the application, its dependencies, or its environment.

Verifying the deployed API

I did not treat the deployment status as the final test. After the application was live, I checked the health endpoint:

curl https://your-application-domain/health

Expected response:

{
  "status": "healthy"
}

I also checked the root endpoint:

curl https://your-application-domain/

The response should confirm that the production environment value is available:

{
  "message": "FastAPI is running",
  "environment": "production"
}

For a production backend, I would continue by testing database connectivity, authentication, CORS behavior, error handling, and external integrations.

A basic health route only confirms that the application process can respond. It does not prove that every dependency is healthy.

What Kuberns handled

Kuberns analyzed the repository and assisted with preparing the deployment. I did not need to create a Dockerfile, configure a server, or manually translate the FastAPI application into infrastructure settings before deployment.

The platform also provided a dashboard where I could review the prepared configuration and follow the deployment. This reduced the amount of work between having a functioning repository and having a deployed application.

What remained my responsibility

Kuberns simplified deployment, but it did not remove application responsibility. I still needed to provide environment values, protect secrets, verify the detected configuration, and test the live API.

If the application used a database, I would also need to plan migrations carefully and verify them in a non-production environment. This is the balance I want from an agentic deployment platform.

The platform should reduce infrastructure work without hiding the application from the developer.

Why Kuberns was the best fit for this FastAPI project

The strongest part of the experience was not simply that the API went from a repository to a deployed service. It was that I did not need to prepare Docker or infrastructure configuration before the platform could understand the project.

That matters for developers who want to build backend products rather than become deployment specialists.

It also makes the workflow useful beyond FastAPI. Kuberns is designed for full-stack and complex backend projects with agentic AI for deployment, so the same repository-first approach can support projects built with different frameworks.

Developers comparing more traditional PaaS workflows can also review this Heroku vs Render vs Kuberns comparison.

For this use case, Kuberns gave me the strongest combination of low setup effort, application visibility, and reduced infrastructure work.

Final thoughts

A useful Heroku alternative should preserve the simplicity developers originally valued while improving the workflow for modern applications.

For my FastAPI project, that meant connecting the repository, allowing the agentic AI to analyze it, reviewing the prepared deployment, adding the required environment values, and monitoring everything through the dashboard.

I did not need to create a Dockerfile or configure infrastructure before deploying.

Plans start at $10, a Trial Option is available, and bundle packs provide additional savings. A small FastAPI repository is a practical way to test the workflow before using it for a larger backend application.

My conclusion was simple:

I wanted to deploy my FastAPI application, not build a deployment system for it. Kuberns let me focus on the application.

I Compared 7 Fly.io Alternatives to Find the Simplest Way to Deploy My Apps

Harsh Kanani — Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:41:05 +0000

# I Tried 7 Fly.io Alternatives for Deploying a Full-Stack App. Here’s My Honest Take

I like having control over my infrastructure, but I do not necessarily want to manage every part of it.

That was what pushed me to start looking beyond Fly.io.

Fly.io gives developers a powerful way to run applications close to users. But once you move beyond a simple service, deployment can involve thinking about machines, regions, containers, networking, databases, scaling, and eventually costs.

At some point, infrastructure starts becoming another part of the job.

For the application I was working with, I did not need more infrastructure control.

I needed less infrastructure work.

I wanted to connect my Git repository, deploy the complete application, and spend most of my time building the product instead of deciding how the underlying infrastructure should run.

So I compared seven platforms:

Kuberns
Railway
Render
DigitalOcean App Platform
Heroku
Vercel
Netlify

I also went through a more detailed comparison of Fly.io alternatives to understand how these platforms differ in deployment workflows, automation, pricing, and infrastructure management.

But for this comparison, I wanted to look at one simple question from a developer's perspective:

If I have a real application sitting in a Git repository, which platform gets me from code to production with the least unnecessary infrastructure work?

The Kind of Application I Wanted to Deploy

I did not want to compare these platforms using a static website or another hello-world application.

Instead, I used the requirements of a fairly normal full-stack application.

The application needed:

A frontend
A backend API
A PostgreSQL database
Environment variables
A background worker
A custom domain with SSL
Automatic deployments when I pushed changes to Git

Nothing particularly unusual.

But once all these pieces are involved, the difference between deploying an application and managing its infrastructure becomes much more obvious.

My goal was to see how much work each platform required to get the complete application running.

Would I need to create every service individually?

Would I need to write a Dockerfile?

How much infrastructure configuration would be required?

How much would I need to think about scaling?

And once everything was live, how much operational work would still be left?

That became the baseline for comparing all seven platforms.

1. Kuberns: The Platform That Automated the Most

Kuberns was the first platform where I felt that the deployment workflow itself was being handled for me rather than simply being made easier to configure.

The starting point was straightforward.

I connected the Git repository, and its Agentic AI analyzed the application architecture and identified what was required to run it.

Instead of manually creating every service and configuring the infrastructure around them, much of that process was handled automatically.

For the type of full-stack application I was trying to deploy, this was the closest to the experience I wanted.

I did not need to start by preparing a Dockerfile or YAML configuration.

I also did not have to think about:

Machines
Regions
Networking
Infrastructure provisioning
Manually configuring a CI/CD pipeline

The workflow was closer to:

Connect Repository
        ↓
AI Understands the Application
        ↓
Required Infrastructure Is Provisioned
        ↓
Application Is Deployed
        ↓
Cloud Operations Are Managed

What stood out to me was that the automation did not stop once the application was deployed.

Monitoring, logs, SSL, scaling, CI/CD, and ongoing cloud operations were already part of the platform experience.

Compared with Fly.io, the philosophy felt almost opposite.

Fly.io gives developers more direct control over infrastructure.

Kuberns tries to reduce how often developers need to think about that infrastructure in the first place.

For my original goal of getting a complete application from Git to production with the least unnecessary infrastructure work, Kuberns gave me the simplest overall experience.

2. Railway: Probably the Smoothest Traditional Developer Experience

Railway was one of the easiest platforms to understand from the moment I connected a project.

The developer experience is very polished.

You can connect a GitHub repository, let Railway detect how the application should be built, and quickly add services such as:

PostgreSQL
MySQL
Redis
MongoDB

Coming from Fly.io, this felt noticeably simpler because I was not thinking about machines or regions before getting the application online.

For developers who want to push code and quickly get a service running, Railway does this extremely well.

Adding databases and connecting multiple services also feels much more approachable than managing the infrastructure behind them directly.

The main difference I noticed compared with Kuberns was the level of automation.

Railway makes it easy to create and manage the services your application needs.

Kuberns goes a step further by trying to understand the application's architecture and automate more of the infrastructure provisioning and cloud operations around it.

Still, if I wanted a modern traditional PaaS where I already understood exactly which services I needed, Railway would probably be my strongest choice after Kuberns.

3. Render: Simple Until the Application Has Multiple Services

Render gave me a straightforward deployment experience from the beginning.

I could connect my repository, define the build and start commands, and deploy without thinking about servers or machines.

For a single web application or API, the experience felt clean and easy to follow.

Things became slightly different when I applied the requirements of my complete application.

I had:

A frontend
A backend
A database
A background worker

Each part needed to be configured as its own service.

Environment variables and other settings also needed to be managed across those services.

None of this was particularly difficult.

But I was still responsible for understanding the application's architecture and configuring each component correctly.

That is where I noticed the difference between simplifying infrastructure and automating deployment.

Render does a very good job of hiding much of the underlying cloud infrastructure.

But I still need to tell the platform how my application should be structured.

For a straightforward web application or API, I found Render very easy to work with.

For larger applications with multiple services, I preferred the idea of a platform that could automatically understand more of the application architecture.

4. DigitalOcean App Platform: Easier Cloud With More Control

DigitalOcean App Platform felt like a good middle ground between a traditional PaaS and directly managing cloud infrastructure.

You can connect a GitHub or GitLab repository, let the platform detect the application framework, and deploy without setting up servers manually.

Compared with Fly.io, that immediately removes a lot of infrastructure work.

For a simple application, the experience is straightforward.

But once I introduced the requirements of my full-stack application, I still had several decisions to make.

I needed to think about:

Databases
Environment variables
Scaling settings
Application components
How different services should be configured

I actually liked having that flexibility.

DigitalOcean App Platform gives developers more control without forcing them to directly manage the underlying infrastructure.

But that also means it is not the most hands-off option.

If I already knew exactly how I wanted my application's infrastructure to look, DigitalOcean App Platform would make a lot of sense.

For my goal of minimizing infrastructure decisions, however, I found myself preferring platforms that automated more of that process.

5. Heroku: The Workflow Still Works

Heroku still feels familiar, even when compared with much newer deployment platforms.

The basic idea remains simple:

Push Code → Build Application → Run Application

For developers who simply want to get an application online without managing servers, the workflow still makes sense.

Compared with Fly.io, I had far fewer infrastructure decisions to make.

I was not thinking about machines or regions, and Heroku's add-on ecosystem makes it relatively straightforward to add things like databases and caching.

But when I looked at the complete application, I still needed to configure several pieces individually:

Web dynos
Worker dynos
Environment variables
Databases
Add-ons

The underlying server management disappears, but you are still responsible for putting the different application components together.

Pricing was another consideration.

Once a production application requires multiple dynos and additional services, the total cost can increase relatively quickly.

Even so, it is easy to understand why Heroku's developer experience influenced so many of the deployment platforms that came after it.

The workflow is proven, the documentation is mature, and the platform remains easy to understand.

For a new project today, though, I would personally prefer a platform that automates more of the application setup and ongoing operations.

6. Vercel: An Excellent Experience for Frontend Applications

For frontend deployment, Vercel was one of the easiest platforms in this comparison.

You can connect a Git repository, push your code, and have the application automatically built and deployed.

Features such as:

Preview deployments
CI/CD
Global delivery
SSL
Git-based deployment

are handled with very little effort.

For Next.js and modern frontend applications, the developer experience is extremely polished.

The challenge started when I brought the rest of my test application into the picture.

I needed:

A traditional backend API
PostgreSQL
A long-running background worker

At that point, I either had to adapt parts of the application to the platform's architecture or introduce additional services into the stack.

For frontend-focused applications, Vercel would easily be one of my first choices.

For the complete full-stack architecture I was testing, however, it did not give me the all-in-one deployment experience I wanted.

7. Netlify: Excellent for Frontend and Jamstack Workloads

My experience with Netlify was similar in some ways.

Connecting a repository and deploying a frontend application is extremely simple.

Git-based deployments, SSL, previews, and global delivery require very little manual work.

For static sites, frontend applications, and Jamstack projects, Netlify remains a strong option.

But my application needed more than a frontend.

Once I added a backend API, PostgreSQL, and a background worker, I needed external services or a different architecture for parts of the application.

That was not necessarily a problem with Netlify.

It simply meant that the platform was solving a different problem from the one I had.

I wanted to simplify deployment for the entire application, not only the frontend.

What the Deployment Experience Actually Looked Like

After going through all seven platforms, this was roughly how I saw the developer experience.

Platform	Repo to Deploy	Database Setup	Multi-Service Setup	Infrastructure Work	My Experience
Kuberns	Very simple	Automated	Mostly automated	Very low	Simplest overall
Railway	Simple	Very simple	Simple	Low	Best traditional PaaS experience
Render	Simple	Simple	Manual service setup	Low to medium	Great for straightforward apps
DigitalOcean App Platform	Simple	Requires configuration	Requires configuration	Medium	Good balance of control and simplicity
Heroku	Simple	Add-on based	Requires configuration	Low to medium	Proven and familiar
Vercel	Extremely simple	External for traditional databases	Limited for traditional services	Very low for frontend	Excellent frontend experience
Netlify	Extremely simple	External	Limited for traditional services	Very low for frontend	Excellent for frontend and Jamstack

The biggest difference was not necessarily whether a platform could run the application.

Most of them could.

The difference was how much I had to think about before and after deployment.

With some platforms, I still needed to decide how to split the application into services, configure each component, connect the database, and think about scaling later.

With frontend-focused platforms, deployment was incredibly simple as long as my application matched the platform's preferred architecture.

Kuberns required the least infrastructure involvement from me across the complete application.

Railway came closest when I wanted a more traditional PaaS workflow while still controlling how individual services were configured.

The Simplest Option I Found

After comparing all seven platforms against the same full-stack requirements, Kuberns was the simplest overall option for me.

Not because every individual feature was unique.

The difference was how little infrastructure work I needed to do myself.

With most platforms, the deployment process still started with me understanding exactly how the application needed to be deployed.

I had to think about:

Services
Databases
Workers
Resources
Deployment configuration
How everything should connect

With Kuberns, the starting point was different.

I connected the repository, and the platform's Agentic AI handled more of the process by understanding the application architecture, identifying the required resources, provisioning the infrastructure, and deploying the application.

That is ultimately the type of deployment experience I am looking for.

I do not want to spend my development time becoming better at configuring deployment platforms.

I want to build the application, push my code, and let the platform handle as much of the operational work as possible.

For developers moving away from Fly.io specifically because they want less machine management, fewer infrastructure decisions, and a simpler way to deploy complete applications, Kuberns would be my first recommendation.

For a deeper breakdown of the platforms, pricing, features, and deployment differences, you can also check out this detailed comparison of Fly.io alternatives.

If I were deploying a new full-stack application today, my priority would be simple:

Choose the platform that lets me spend the most time building the application and the least time managing everything underneath it.

For me, that platform would be Kuberns.

I Compared the Top 8 Netlify Alternatives. Here Are the Best 5 I'd Actually Recommend

Harsh Kanani — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:12:16 +0000

When I started comparing deployment platforms, I wasn't looking for another frontend hosting service. I was looking for a platform that could handle an entire application.

Many of the projects I work on today include a frontend, backend APIs, databases, authentication, background workers, and sometimes AI services. Managing different parts of the application across multiple platforms isn't always the workflow I want, so I started exploring what other deployment platforms had to offer.

During my research, I also came across this detailed comparison of Netlify alternatives, which covered many of the platforms I was evaluating and provided some useful insights alongside my own testing.

After comparing several options, I narrowed my list down to five platforms that I believe stand out for different use cases. Here's what I found.

Why I Started Looking for a Netlify Alternative?

One thing I realized while comparing deployment platforms is that the definition of a "web application" has changed.

A few years ago, deploying a frontend was often enough. Today, most applications include APIs, databases, authentication, background workers, AI features, and multiple services working together.

As applications become more complex, the deployment platform becomes responsible for much more than simply publishing a website. That changed what I was looking for.

Instead of asking whether a platform could deploy my frontend, I started asking questions like:

Can it handle both frontend and backend applications?
Can I manage everything from one place?
How much manual infrastructure work does it require?
Will it still be a good choice as the application grows?

Those questions helped me narrow down the platforms that genuinely stood out, and the five below are the ones I'd feel comfortable recommending to other developers.

The 5 Netlify Alternatives I'd Recommend

After comparing several deployment platforms, I kept coming back to the same five. Each one approaches deployments differently.

Some focus on frontend performance, some simplify production infrastructure, and others aim to make the entire deployment process easier for developers. The right choice really depends on what you're building and how you prefer to work.

Here's the shortlist I'd recommend after evaluating these platforms.

1. Kuberns

The platform that impressed me the most during my comparison was Kuberns.

The biggest difference I noticed was its approach to deployment. Instead of focusing only on getting an application online, Kuberns is designed to simplify the entire deployment lifecycle.

As the world's first Agentic AI deployment platform, it uses AI to understand your application, provision infrastructure, assist with deployments, and continue helping with cloud management after your application is live. That includes monitoring, logs, scaling, SSL, custom domains, and other operational tasks that developers usually manage separately.

Compared to Netlify, which primarily excels at frontend deployments, Kuberns feels like a platform built for modern full-stack applications. Whether you're deploying APIs, backend services, databases, or AI-powered applications, everything can be managed from one place instead of combining multiple services.

Why I'd Recommend Kuberns

Agentic AI simplifies deployments and cloud management.
Deploy frontend and backend applications from a single platform.
Built-in monitoring, logs, scaling, SSL, and custom domains.
Reduces the amount of manual infrastructure work required.
Designed for modern full-stack and AI applications.

Best suited for

Full-stack applications
SaaS products
AI-powered applications
Startup teams
Agencies

If you're evaluating Netlify alternatives because your application has outgrown frontend-only hosting, Kuberns is the platform I'd recommend looking at first. It doesn't just replace part of your deployment workflow, it helps simplify the entire application lifecycle.

2. Vercel

If your projects are heavily built around React and Next.js, Vercel is probably the most obvious Netlify alternative.

During my comparison, what stood out was how polished the overall developer experience feels. From connecting a Git repository to preview deployments and production releases, almost everything works out of the box. Since the platform is built by the creators of Next.js, it's no surprise that the integration feels seamless.

That said, I also found that Vercel is at its best when your application is primarily frontend-focused. As applications become larger and include multiple backend services, you'll likely start looking at additional infrastructure alongside it.

Why I'd Recommend Vercel

Excellent support for React and Next.js.
Fast deployments with preview environments.
Built-in optimizations for frontend performance.
Clean and intuitive developer experience.

Best suited for

Next.js applications
React projects
Marketing websites
Documentation sites
Frontend-focused teams

If your primary focus is building and deploying modern frontend applications, Vercel is easily one of the strongest alternatives to Netlify and deserves a place on this list.

3. Render

Another platform that consistently came up during my research was Render.

What I liked most about Render is that it strikes a good balance between simplicity and production readiness. It supports frontend applications, backend services, databases, background workers, and cron jobs, making it a solid choice for developers building complete web applications.

Compared to Netlify, Render feels less focused on frontend hosting and more focused on helping developers manage an entire application from a single platform. The deployment workflow is straightforward, Git integration works well, and you don't have to spend much time managing infrastructure yourself.

Why I'd Recommend Render

Supports both frontend and backend deployments.
Managed databases, background workers, and cron jobs.
Simple Git-based deployment workflow.
Built for production applications without unnecessary complexity.

Best suited for

Full-stack web applications
SaaS products
APIs and backend services
Startup teams
Developers looking for a managed Platform as a Service

If you're looking for a platform that can comfortably handle both your frontend and backend as your application grows, Render is one of the strongest Netlify alternatives I'd recommend.

4. Railway

If developer experience is your biggest priority, Railway is definitely worth considering.

While comparing different platforms, I found Railway to be one of the simplest ways to deploy an application. The interface is clean, deployments are straightforward, and connecting a Git repository takes very little effort. It removes much of the setup that's typically associated with deploying web applications, making it especially appealing for developers who want to move fast.

Compared to Netlify, Railway offers a more complete environment for running full-stack applications. Instead of focusing primarily on frontend deployments, it supports backend services, databases, and APIs, making it a good fit for projects that need more than static hosting.

Why I'd Recommend Railway

Simple and intuitive deployment workflow.
Quick Git-based deployments.
Supports frontend and backend applications.
Built-in database support.
Great developer experience with minimal setup.

Best suited for

MVPs
Startup projects
Internal tools
Side projects
Developers who want to ship quickly

If your goal is to get a full-stack application online with as little configuration as possible, Railway is one of the easiest Netlify alternatives to get started with.

5. Heroku

Even with so many newer deployment platforms available today, Heroku still deserves a place on this list.

During my research, I found that Heroku continues to appeal to developers who value simplicity over endless configuration options. It was one of the platforms that popularized the Platform as a Service (PaaS) model, and that philosophy is still reflected in its developer experience. Connecting an application, deploying with Git, and managing add-ons is straightforward, making it a reliable choice for many teams.

Compared to Netlify, Heroku is much better suited for applications that require backend services, databases, and production workloads. While it may not include some of the newer AI-driven or edge-focused capabilities found on other platforms, it makes up for that with a mature ecosystem and years of proven reliability.

Why I'd Recommend Heroku

Simple Git-based deployment workflow.
Mature and reliable Platform as a Service.
Large ecosystem of add-ons and integrations.
Well-documented with strong community support.

Best suited for

Full-stack web applications
APIs and backend services
Startup products
Teams looking for a mature deployment platform
Developers new to Platform as a Service

If you're looking for a dependable deployment platform with a long track record and a straightforward developer experience, Heroku is still one of the strongest Netlify alternatives worth considering.

My Personal Favorite

After comparing these five platforms, I came away with one conclusion: there isn't a universal winner. The best deployment platform depends on what you're building.

If you're working primarily with Next.js, I'd lean towards Vercel. If you want a mature managed platform for production workloads, Render is a great option.

But if I were starting a new project today, Kuberns would be my first choice.

What stood out to me was its ability to simplify everything that comes after deployment as well. Instead of using separate tools for infrastructure, monitoring, logs, scaling, and cloud management, Kuberns brings those capabilities together into a single platform powered by Agentic AI.

For modern full-stack applications, that's a workflow I find much more practical. It allows me to spend less time thinking about infrastructure and more time building features, which is ultimately what I want from a deployment platform.

I'd also love to hear your experience.

If you've moved away from Netlify, which platform did you choose and what ultimately convinced you to make the switch? Have you tried Kuberns?

Hetzner rejected my account. Here are 10 alternatives (My Honest Review)

Harsh Kanani — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 14:02:05 +0000

I Got Rejected by Hetzner. So I Tested 10 Alternatives (My Honest Review)

Hetzner rejected my account without any reason.

No explanation.

I submitted my ID, my payment card, filled out their verification form, and got a rejection email.

That was it.

I'm not the only one.

If you search "Hetzner account rejected" on Reddit or Stack Overflow, you'll find pages of developers from India, Turkey, Southeast Asia, and many other countries with the exact same story.

Here are a couple of discussions:

Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/hetzner/comments/1n1fqgf/unable_to_create_account_on_hetzner_they_cant/
Stack Overflow discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23741542/redirect-bought-domain-from-hetzner-application

Hetzner's automated verification system has rejected legitimate developers without providing an explanation or appeal process.

Instead of trying repeatedly, I decided to evaluate other options.

Over the next few weeks, I tested 10 different cloud providers.

I compared:

Pricing
Deployment experience
Managed services
Scaling
Monitoring
Global regions
Developer experience
Support

If you're looking for an even deeper comparison between these providers, this article goes into more detail:

👉 Complete Hetzner Alternatives Guide

Here's my honest breakdown.

Problems With Hetzner (Read This Before You Sign Up)

Hetzner is popular for a reason.

The pricing is excellent, particularly for workloads hosted inside Europe.

However, after researching the platform and reading hundreds of community discussions, several limitations became obvious.

1. Account Verification Issues

This is the biggest concern.

Many developers outside Europe report getting rejected despite submitting:

Government ID
Credit or debit card
Address verification
Legitimate business information

The rejection usually contains no explanation.

There's also no clear appeal process.

If you're planning to build production infrastructure, that uncertainty is worth considering.

2. Most of the Pricing Advantage Is in Europe

Hetzner's strongest infrastructure is still centered around Europe.

Although they have expanded into additional regions, developers targeting India, Southeast Asia, or North America often experience higher latency compared to providers with local infrastructure.

3. Everything Is Self-Managed

Hetzner provides infrastructure.

Everything beyond the virtual machine is your responsibility.

That includes:

Deployments
SSL certificates
Monitoring
Scaling
Logging
Backups
Security updates
CI/CD

For experienced DevOps engineers this is manageable.

For startups and small engineering teams, it can consume significant engineering time.

4. No Nested Virtualization

Hetzner doesn't support nested virtualization.

If your workflow depends on:

Android emulators
Virtual machines inside virtual machines
Specialized CI environments

You'll need another provider.

5. Limited Managed Support

Most Hetzner customers use unmanaged servers.

If your production server fails during the night, you're responsible for investigating and fixing the issue.

Quick Comparison

Provider	Starting Price	Managed DB	Auto Scaling	Monitoring	Zero Config Deploy	Best For
Kuberns	From $5/mo	✅	✅	✅	✅	Teams wanting deployment automation
DigitalOcean	$4/mo	✅	Manual	Partial	App Platform	Managed cloud services
Vultr	$2.50/mo	Basic	Manual	❌	❌	Global infrastructure
SSD Nodes	$5.50/mo	❌	Manual	❌	❌	Maximum compute
OVHcloud	$3.99/mo	❌	Manual	❌	❌	European workloads
Linode (Akamai)	$5/mo	❌	Manual	❌	❌	Reliable VPS
Kamatera	$4/mo	❌	Manual	❌	❌	Flexible VM sizing
ScalaHosting	$29.95/mo	❌	Manual	Basic	❌	Managed VPS
Hostwinds	$4.99/mo	❌	Manual	Basic	❌	Budget managed VPS
Contabo	~$6/mo	❌	Manual	❌	❌	Cheapest hardware

The 10 Alternatives I Tested

1. Kuberns

Website:
https://kuberns.com/

Kuberns was the most different platform I tested.

Unlike traditional VPS providers, it focuses on removing infrastructure management rather than simply renting you servers.

You connect your Git repository, deploy your application, and the platform handles the operational work.

Highlights

Automatic framework detection
No Dockerfile required
No YAML configuration
Automatic deployments
Built-in monitoring
Centralized logs
Automatic scaling
Runs on AWS infrastructure
Up to 40% lower AWS compute costs through infrastructure optimization

The biggest difference is that you're spending time building software instead of managing servers.

For teams that don't want to become DevOps experts, this approach feels very different from traditional VPS providers.

Best for: Teams wanting deployment automation instead of server management.

2. DigitalOcean

DigitalOcean is probably the safest recommendation for most developers.

Compared to Hetzner, it offers:

Managed PostgreSQL
Managed MySQL
Redis
MongoDB
App Platform
Kubernetes
Object Storage
Global regions including Bangalore

Although pricing is higher than Hetzner, much of the operational work disappears.

If you're already familiar with cloud platforms, the learning curve is also relatively small.

Best for: Managed services without AWS complexity.

3. Vultr

Vultr focuses heavily on worldwide infrastructure.

Some advantages include:

30+ global locations
Bare metal
Cloud compute
Object storage
Managed databases
Hourly billing

It remains largely infrastructure-focused, meaning you'll still manage deployments yourself.

However, if low latency across multiple continents is your priority, Vultr is a strong option.

Best for: Applications serving users worldwide.

4. SSD Nodes

If your priority is getting the most compute power for the lowest long-term cost, SSD Nodes deserves a look.

Their long-term plans offer some of the best price-to-performance ratios in the VPS market.

One feature that makes SSD Nodes stand out is support for nested virtualization, something Hetzner doesn't offer.

That makes it useful for workloads such as:

Android emulators
VM-based CI pipelines
Multi-layer testing environments
Virtual machines inside virtual machines

The downside is that it's still a traditional unmanaged VPS.

You'll still be responsible for deployments, monitoring, scaling, backups, and server maintenance.

Best for: Developers wanting maximum compute per dollar and needing nested virtualization.

5. OVHcloud

OVHcloud is one of Hetzner's strongest European competitors.

If your customers are primarily located in Europe, it offers several attractive advantages.

Highlights include:

Strong GDPR compliance
Built-in DDoS protection
Unmetered bandwidth on many plans
Multiple European data centers
Dedicated server options

Compared to DigitalOcean, the dashboard feels more technical, and the overall experience is less beginner-friendly.

However, for businesses with compliance requirements, it's an excellent option.

Best for: European businesses and bandwidth-heavy applications.

6. Linode (Akamai Cloud)

Since joining Akamai, Linode has continued to be known for reliability and predictable pricing.

Unlike many budget VPS providers, Linode has built its reputation around:

Consistent performance
Excellent documentation
Transparent billing
Responsive customer support

Like Hetzner, it's still largely infrastructure-focused.

You'll manage deployments, monitoring, and scaling yourself.

But if reliability is more important than the absolute cheapest pricing, Linode is worth considering.

Best for: Developers who value stable infrastructure and dependable support.

7. Kamatera

Kamatera approaches cloud infrastructure differently.

Instead of fixed instance sizes, you can customize almost every resource independently.

Configure exactly the amount of:

CPU
RAM
Storage
Network

that your workload requires.

You're billed based on the resources you provision, making it useful for workloads with changing requirements.

Kamatera also provides a generous trial credit, allowing you to evaluate production-sized infrastructure before committing.

The tradeoff is that it's still infrastructure-first.

You'll continue managing deployments, scaling, monitoring, and server operations yourself.

Best for: Businesses requiring highly customized virtual machines.

8. ScalaHosting

ScalaHosting sits somewhere between a VPS provider and a managed hosting platform.

Unlike Hetzner, much of the server administration is handled for you.

Features include:

Managed VPS
Automatic security updates
Server monitoring
Backups
Malware protection
Free migration

It costs significantly more than unmanaged VPS providers, but many businesses are happy to pay for reduced operational overhead.

Best for: Businesses wanting managed VPS hosting with built-in security.

9. Hostwinds

Hostwinds focuses on affordable managed VPS hosting.

Their managed plans include:

Server optimization
Performance monitoring
Technical assistance
Infrastructure management

One of their most marketed features is a very high uptime guarantee.

The primary limitation is regional coverage.

If your users are mostly outside North America, other providers may offer lower latency.

Best for: Small businesses serving North American users.

10. Contabo

Contabo has become well known for offering extremely high hardware specifications at very low prices.

For around $6–7/month, you can often get significantly more RAM, CPU, and storage than competitors.

Typical plans include:

Multiple vCPUs
Large RAM allocations
NVMe SSD storage

For developers on a tight budget, it's hard to ignore.

However, the lower pricing comes with tradeoffs.

Community feedback frequently mentions:

Slower support response times
Inconsistent network performance during peak usage
Completely self-managed infrastructure

For hobby projects and development environments, it's an excellent value.

For business-critical production workloads, you should evaluate those tradeoffs carefully.

Best for: Developers wanting maximum hardware for minimum cost.

Useful Resources

If you're still researching cloud providers, these resources may help.

📖 Complete comparison of Hetzner alternatives

https://kuberns.com/blogs/discover-the-best-hetzner-alternative-options-today/

💬 Reddit discussion about Hetzner account verification

https://www.reddit.com/r/hetzner/comments/1n1fqgf/unable_to_create_account_on_hetzner_they_cant/

💬 Stack Overflow discussion

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23741542/redirect-bought-domain-from-hetzner-to-heroku-application

🚀 Kuberns

https://kuberns.com/

My Verdict

After testing all ten providers, here's how I'd make the decision today.

If you want to stop managing servers altogether

Choose Kuberns.

Instead of renting infrastructure and configuring everything yourself, it automates deployment, scaling, monitoring, and cloud management.

It's the closest thing I found to simply connecting a Git repository and shipping code without worrying about infrastructure.

If you were rejected by Hetzner

Go with DigitalOcean or Vultr.

Both have a much smoother onboarding experience, offer global regions, and don't rely on the same account verification process that many developers have struggled with.

If you need managed databases

DigitalOcean is probably the easiest recommendation.

Managed PostgreSQL, MySQL, Redis, MongoDB, Kubernetes, and App Platform make it a solid choice for startups.

If your priority is maximum hardware per dollar

Look at:

Contabo
SSD Nodes

You'll get impressive specifications for the price.

Just remember that you'll also be responsible for managing the infrastructure yourself.

If you need nested virtualization

SSD Nodes is the clear winner.

Very few budget VPS providers officially support nested virtualization.

If you're serving primarily European customers

OVHcloud remains one of the strongest options thanks to:

European infrastructure
GDPR compliance
Built-in DDoS protection
Strong network

If you want predictable billing and reliable support

Linode (Akamai) is difficult to beat.

It's not the cheapest provider, but it's one of the most consistent.

Which One Would I Personally Choose?

Every provider on this list solves a different problem.

If your goal is simply renting inexpensive infrastructure, providers like Vultr, DigitalOcean, OVHcloud, Linode, and Contabo all have their strengths.

But after spending time with each platform, I realized something.

Most cloud providers are still selling the same thing:

Servers.

They've made servers cheaper.

They've made servers faster.

Some have made them easier to manage.

But you're still responsible for infrastructure.

That's why Kuberns stood out to me.

Instead of improving server management, it removes much of it.

You connect your repository.

Deploy.

The platform handles deployments, monitoring, scaling, logs, and cloud operations automatically.

For small teams, founders, agencies, and developers who'd rather spend time shipping features than maintaining infrastructure, that's a meaningful difference.

Final Thoughts

Getting rejected by Hetzner was frustrating.

At the time, it felt like a blocker.

In hindsight, it pushed me to evaluate platforms I probably wouldn't have explored otherwise.

And honestly, I'm glad it happened.

Every provider on this list has legitimate strengths.

The right choice depends on what matters most to you:

Lowest price
Managed services
Global infrastructure
Compliance
Raw compute
Or eliminating infrastructure management altogether

Hopefully this comparison saves you the time I spent testing everything myself.

If you're still comparing providers, I'd also recommend reading this detailed comparison that goes much deeper into pricing, features, deployment workflows, and real-world differences:

👉 https://kuberns.com/blogs/discover-the-best-hetzner-alternative-options-today/

You can also explore Kuberns here:

👉 https://kuberns.com/

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best alternative to Hetzner?

It depends on your requirements.

DigitalOcean is excellent for managed cloud services.
Vultr offers strong global coverage.
OVHcloud is ideal for European workloads.
Contabo provides excellent hardware value.
Kuberns focuses on AI-powered deployment and cloud automation.

Why do some Hetzner accounts get rejected?

Hetzner doesn't publicly disclose its verification criteria.

However, many developers have reported account rejections during the identity verification process.

Community discussions include:

Which Hetzner alternative is best for beginners?

DigitalOcean is generally considered beginner-friendly because of its clean interface, managed services, and extensive documentation.

If your goal is to avoid server management almost entirely, platforms like Kuberns offer an even simpler deployment experience.

Which provider is the cheapest?

For raw infrastructure pricing, Contabo, Vultr, SSD Nodes, and Hetzner are among the lowest-cost providers.

Remember to compare the total cost, including managed databases, backups, monitoring, and operational effort—not just the monthly VPS price.

Which platform requires the least DevOps knowledge?

Among the providers covered in this article, Kuberns requires the least manual infrastructure management because deployments, scaling, monitoring, and cloud operations are automated.

Traditional VPS providers like Hetzner, Contabo, Linode, and Vultr still require you to manage much of the infrastructure yourself.

Thanks for reading!

If you've used any of these providers—or have another recommendation—I'd love to hear your experience in the comments.