AWS t2.nanovsAWS t3a.nano

t2.nano pairs 1 vCPUs with 0.5GB of RAM at $0.0058/hr On-Demand (about $4/mo at 24×7). t3a.nano pairs 2 vCPUs with 0.5GB at $0.0047/hr (~$3/mo). t3a.nano is 19% cheaper per hour than t2.nano ($0.0011/hr gap).

These are different generations of the same series. **t3a.nano** is the newer generation, and AWS's pattern across generations is fairly consistent: ~10–15% better single-thread, 15–30% better multi-core, and similar or modestly higher per-hour pricing — so the price/performance per dollar usually improves with each generation. **t2.nano** is still available and still works (AWS doesn't retire instance types quickly), but for new workloads the newer generation is typically the better default unless you have a specific reason to pin to the older AMI or there's a meaningful regional pricing advantage today.

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 1247/1302 for t3a.nano. 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 t3a.nano 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.