Comparison
AWS Sustainability vs Cloud Carbon Footprint
AWS Sustainability vs Cloud Carbon Footprint: AWS console service for viewing account-level carbon emissions and water withdrawals. Open-source tool for…
| Field | AWS Sustainability AWS console service for viewing account-level carbon emissions and water withdrawals. | Cloud Carbon Footprint Open-source tool for measuring and reducing cloud emissions across AWS, Azure and Google Cloud. |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Custom quote | Free |
| Pricing published | Custom quote only | Public pricing |
| Starting price | Free | |
| Licensing | Proprietary | Open source |
| Pricing details | The AWS Sustainability user guide does not list a price; the service is presented as part of the AWS console for viewing account-level carbon and water data. | Free and open source; the project is sponsored by Thoughtworks under the Apache License, Version 2.0. |
| Free tier | No | Yes |
| Assets covered | ||
| Platforms | Cloud, Web, API | Cloud, On-premise |
| Region support | Global | Global |
| Compliance | Not stated | Not stated |
| API available | Yes | No |
| Last verified | 2026-10-22 | 2026-10-22 |
Editor's take on AWS Sustainability
Suited to AWS customers who need account-level carbon and water figures from the provider itself, broken down by region and service, rather than estimates inferred from billing. The recorded trade-off is coverage: it reports AWS usage only, so a multi-cloud estate needs a second source, and carbon data is published monthly for complete months, which rules out using it as a live optimisation signal. An API and Data Exports to S3 suit teams moving data into their own warehouse, while the user guide lists no separate price. Buyers wanting cross-provider normalisation or real-time tracking should look at dedicated tools.
Read the AWS Sustainability listingEditor's take on Cloud Carbon Footprint
Fits engineering teams that already run cost or billing pipelines for AWS, Google Cloud and Azure and want energy and emissions estimates, including embodied emissions, derived from that same billing data. The trade-off is operational: the project is self-hosted, so someone must run the dashboard and keep its provider data current, and results follow the billing exports and documented methodology rather than live provider APIs. Teams without self-hosting capacity, or needing assurance-grade audit trails, should treat it as a complement to a managed reporting platform.
Read the Cloud Carbon Footprint listingJudgement is written by the editor. Paid placements never change the ranking or the recorded field values.
All comparisons