AWS t2.nanovsAWS t2.xlarge

t2.nano pairs 1 vCPUs with 0.5GB of RAM at $0.0058/hr On-Demand (about $4/mo at 24×7). t2.xlarge pairs 4 vCPUs with 16GB at $0.1856/hr (~$134/mo). t2.nano is 3100% cheaper per hour than t2.xlarge ($0.1798/hr gap).

Because both instances are in the **t2 family**, the only thing that changes between them is sizing — same silicon, same architecture (Intel Xeon (x86_64)), same burstable/sustained behavior. The choice is purely about how much capacity you actually need: t2.nano gives you 1 vCPUs and 0.5GB of RAM, t2.xlarge gives you 4 vCPUs and 16GB. AWS scales pricing close to linearly within a family, so picking the right size is mostly about right-sizing your workload, not getting a better deal per vCPU.

Benchmark data for at least one of these instances is still being collected, so a direct performance-per-dollar comparison isn't possible yet. Sysbench scores are pending for t2.nano and 908/3540 for t2.xlarge. Check back as the benchmark queue completes — newer-generation instances typically score 10–30% higher on single-thread and 15–50% higher on multi-core vs the previous generation in the same series.

In practice, pick t2.nano when your workload is closer to burstable general-purpose (bursty traffic — web apps, dev/test boxes, CI runners, small databases). Pick t2.xlarge when it's closer to burstable general-purpose (bursty traffic — web apps, dev/test boxes, CI runners, small databases). When neither side is obviously right, the cheaper hourly rate usually wins for fault-tolerant batch workloads, while the higher single-core score usually wins for latency-sensitive web traffic. The regional pricing tables linked from each instance page below show where each is currently cheapest — sometimes a >20% regional gap flips the comparison entirely.