![Amazon EMR vs. BlueData [EOL] report](https://www.peerspot.com/assets/media/images/icons/pdf-c33db68f.svg){kind=icon}
![BlueData [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_64/13qmgl48si6583z3hdyvbfnigz48.jpeg?_a=BACAGSDL)
![BlueData [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_30/13qmgl48si6583z3hdyvbfnigz48.jpeg?_a=BACAGSDL){kind=small}
![BlueData [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_40/13qmgl48si6583z3hdyvbfnigz48.jpeg?_a=BACAGSDL){kind=small}
I have used AWS Glue with S3 for making tables and databases, but regarding Amazon EMR, I do not remember much as we are currently using it very minimally. This is my observation: In EKS, we have had to deploy by ourselves because EKS does not provide the Hadoop framework, Spark, Hive, and everything, but we have completed all the deployment ourselves. Whereas Amazon EMR provides all these things. The cost factor differs significantly. When you run Spark application on EKS, you run at the pod level, so you can control the compute cost. But in Amazon EMR, when you have to run one application, you have to launch the entire EC2. In Qubole, the interface was very good. I could see many details because in Amazon EMR console, very few details are available. In Qubole, at one link, you can get all the details of what is happening, how the processes are running, and the cost decreased by using Qubole. I found Qubole more user-friendly and cost-effective. From the security point of view, we had to open some access rights to Qubole, which might be a drawback in comparison to Amazon EMR which is native to AWS.
![NVIDIA Base Command Manager vs BlueData [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_30/rCrJ5QMmvucDdhnMyyNUFbAd.jpeg?_a=BACAGSDL){kind=small}
