tavin vs Vercel
Last updated: 2026-05-04
Vercel is the gold standard for frontend deploys, Next.js, static sites, serverless functions, and now has its own MCP surface. tavin.cloud is for service-shaped repo deployments: backends, workers, daemons, ML services, and agent-built apps that should run as long-lived containers.
At a glance
| tavin.cloud | Vercel | |
|---|---|---|
| Workload model | Long-running containers | Serverless functions + static sites |
| Build contract | Railpack by default; Dockerfile or image when explicit | Framework-aware (Next/Vite/etc.) |
| Billing | Per-minute CPU + RAM | Bandwidth + function invocations |
| Cold start | Container spin-up (~seconds) | Function cold-start (~ms) |
| Custom binaries / system deps | Yes (any Linux image) | Limited (function runtime only) |
| Background workers / queues | First-class | Cron only; no daemons |
| Agent control | Scoped MCP tools, deploy intents, audit logs | Official Vercel MCP for projects and deployments |
When to pick Vercel
- You’re shipping a Next.js / Vite / static site. Vercel is the platform for that.
- You want a global CDN with edge functions and ISR.
- Your “backend” is a thin layer of API routes, not a long-running process.
When to pick tavin
- You have a backend, a worker, a daemon, an ML service, a database, or any process that needs to stay alive.
- You need a normal container runtime for a custom base, system packages, GPU drivers, or a non-frontend service.
- You want agents to operate the runtime through scoped deploy tools, approval links, and task-bounded tokens.
- You want one platform for both your Next.js frontend and its FastAPI/Rails/Go backend, instead of splitting across Vercel + somewhere else.
They’re complementary
Many tavin users keep their marketing site on Vercel and move backends/workers to tavin. The contract — git push — is the same on both sides.