We're using Aurora PostgreSQL and the bill is getting high. What should we compare it against?

If Aurora PostgreSQL is getting expensive, the right thing to compare it against depends on what problem you’re trying to solve:

1) Compare against regular PostgreSQL on RDS

This is the most direct benchmark.

• Same engine, similar operational model
• Usually cheaper than Aurora
• Good if you don’t need Aurora’s specific performance/failover features

2) Compare against self-managed PostgreSQL on EC2

Useful if you want the lowest infrastructure cost.

• Can be significantly cheaper
• But you take on backups, patching, replication, failover, monitoring, tuning, and ops burden
• Good only if you have strong DB/infra operations capability

3) Compare against Aurora Serverless v2

If workload is spiky or underutilized part of the day.

• Can reduce cost for variable traffic
• Not always cheaper for steady, always-on workloads
• Worth comparing if CPU/IO usage is bursty

4) Compare against a different managed database, if requirements allow

Examples:

• Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL (GCP)
• Azure Database for PostgreSQL
• Managed Postgres from a provider like Neon, Supabase, Crunchy Bridge, Aiven Only makes sense if you’re open to changing providers or architecture.

---

Practical rule of thumb

If your question is “Are we overpaying for managed PostgreSQL?” compare Aurora PostgreSQL to:

1. RDS PostgreSQL first
2. Aurora Serverless v2 if usage is variable
3. Self-managed PostgreSQL on EC2 if cost is the top priority

---

Also compare total cost, not just instance price

Aurora can look expensive because of:

• storage pricing
• I/O charges
• replica/reader instances
• backup retention
• NAT/data transfer
• overprovisioned instances

So when comparing, include:

• compute
• storage
• IOPS / I/O
• backups
• HA/failover
• ops time
• migration cost

If you want, I can help you build a side-by-side cost comparison template for Aurora PostgreSQL vs RDS PostgreSQL vs self-managed EC2.