Terraform vs. Pulumi is the eternal battle of two titans. DevOps teams work with the infrastructure every day. They add new resources, change configurations, connect new services, and even rebuild the environment for a new release. So all this must be done quickly, accurately, and automatically. Because manual work at this stage means unnecessary risks and wasted time. All wanna be effective. That is why infrastructure as code (IaC) is no longer a trend. Now it is a golden standard. It helps you to describe infrastructure in the form of configuration files and store them smoothly when needed.

Today, the Golems Drupal development team explores which option is better, how they function, and whether it is possible to use both without choosing between them. Don't switch! It will be brief, direct, and really informative.

Terraform vs. Pulumi. Who's best?

Which one to use? Which one is the best for you? In most cases, the choice comes down to two options: Terraform or Pulumi. Both help automate infrastructure, but they do it differently.

Terraform is more of a time-tested option. It uses its own language (HCL), works declaratively, and has a large community. Terraform also offers numerous ready-made solutions. It is a reliable choice, especially for teams that have been working with clouds for a long time.

Pulumi is a more flexible tool. Here you will find more detailed infrastructure in TypeScript, Python, Go, and C#. This is useful for teams where developers are responsible for infrastructure or when additional logic, conditions, and structured code are necessary.

To find the best option, you need to pay attention to syntax, cloud service support, and integration.

Terraform vs. Pulumi: Syntax & Features

So, the difference between Terraform and Pulumi is noticeable as soon as you open the editor and start writing the first lines of code. Although both are designed to describe infrastructure as code, their approaches differ significantly. Terraform is a declarative model. The user simply specifies the outcomes you expect to get. The HCL syntax is clear and well-structured. It is easy to read, but it has limitations. There are almost no conditions, loops, and external logic. Sometimes this is enough, for example, your task is to create a bucket, instance, or cluster without unnecessary conditions.

In contrast, Pulumi allows more. You can describe the infrastructure in familiar language. You can use: TypeScript, Python, Go, or C#. You can use conditions, loops, functions, and even write tests here. This will be convenient for teams that have programmers or want to have more control. Let`s compare.  

Terraform: 

resource “aws_s3_bucket “example” {

bucket = "my-bucket”
acl = “private”
}

Pulumi: 

const bucket = new aws. s3. Bucket ("my-bucket", {

acl: “privat”,
});

Actually, at first glance, everything looks simple. However, Plumi provides more flexibility, while Terraform requires a workaround.

Terraform vs. Pulumi: Cloud Providers

Let`s speak about cloud providers. Terraform and Plumi support all major cloud providers. Among them are AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, DigitalOcean, Oracle Cloud, and others. Both solutions may be utilized in multi-cloud systems. However, their implementation strategies differ greatly. 

Terraform works through providers, using plugins for each cloud. This allows you to use a single approach for different platforms. Thanks to the declarative model, the infrastructure description remains simple and pretty predictable. In most cases, this is sufficient for deploying typical resources, such as virtual machines, buckets, and network infrastructure. 

Plumi offers slightly more flexibility. Thanks to its support for a full-fledged programming language, it allows you to work directly with cloud platform SDKs, which is useful for more complex scenarios. For example, when you need to implement dynamic logic or integrate infrastructure with external APIs. Here are some typical situations in which one of the tools will be more suitable than the other.  

Terraform is more suited for:

•  Deploying infrastructure in AWS, GCP, and Azure using templates.
•  Creating identical environments for staging, production, etc.
• Teams with dozens of engineers who already have module libraries.
• Projects that require a clear structure, shared state, and change control.

Plumi performs better in the following cases: 

• When you need to implement infrastructure with conditions, logic, and data processing.
• When working with specific APIs that do not have Terraform modules (e.g., Firebase, Cloudflare, GitHub).
• In serverless architectures, where infrastructures, where infrastructure and application are closely linked.
• For multi-cloud solutions, you need to reduce code duplication and centralize logic.

In Plumi, it is easy to implement complex scenarios, such as checking whether a resource exists in a single cloud. In Terraform, such tasks require third-party scripts. Another important difference is Kubernetes support. Both tools can manage a cluster, but the approaches are different:

Terraform has providers for EKS, GKE, and AKS, but usually requires additional tools such as Helm or kubectl to both the cluster itself and its resources in a single code, without switching between tools. This reduces the complexity of maintenance. 

As a result, Terraform is well-suited for stable, structured projects where simplicity and reliability are priorities. Pulumi provides more flexibility for dynamic environments, complex conditions, and deep integration with applications. Should you use Terraform or Pulumi? The choice depends on the level of technical requirements and, of course, team training.

Terraform vs. Pulumi: Integration With Existing DevOps Processes 

The choice of tool depends on how easily it fits into your existing process. If you already have GitLab CI, GitHub Actions, or Jenkins set up, your Kubernetes cluster is running, and your pipelines are updated automatically. But the most important thing is that the new tool doesn`t complicate this ecosystem, but complements it organically.

Terraform is well-suited for such a scenario. It has long been the standard in DevOps environments. There is support for Terraform Cloud, a separate platform for managing state, planning changes, and policies. The tool has an intuitive CLI, a clear command structure, and predictable behavior. This allows you to avoid wasting time on configuration each time. 

Pulumi is a good match for teams that already have experience with programming languages. It works through an SDK, supports various deployment environments, and has its own Pulumi Cloud service (or can use local state). In addition, it allows you to write tests for infrastructure code, which is important for complex projects with increased reliability requirements. Let`s compare the key features of integration.

Terraform in CI/CD:

• Clear separation between plan and apply, allowing you to preview changes.
• Convenient state management via S3, GCP, Terraform Cloud, or other backends.
• Scales in a team thanks to workspace, locking and environment separation.
• Supports policy-as-code using Sentinel or OPA.
• May be vulnerable to race conditions if the state is not protected.

Pulumi in CI/CD:

• Code is written in familiar languages, making it easy to connect linting, testing, and code review.
• CI.CD integration is possible via SDK (e.g., Node.js or Python scripts).
• Supports writing using tests for infrastructure.
• Flexible state management - you can work both locally and through Pulumi Cloud.
• Additional configuration may be required in older pipelines. 

It is also worth mentioning GitOps, an approach based on automatic infrastructure deployment from a git repository. Terraform has an advantage due to its declarative nature. The logic is clearly described in HCL, changes are controlled via pull requests, and the pipeline itself is easy to implement using the code, plan, and apply scheme.

Pulumi, on the other hand, requires more discipline. Since the infrastructure is described in a programming language, a full review of changes is required. Mainly, if the code contains logic that depends on conditions or third-party data. But if the team is technically strong, this opens up new opportunities rather than creating some risks.

Conclusion: Which IaC Tool is Better for Your Infrastructure?

The choice between Terraform and Pulumi is not about which one is better, but which one is right for your DevOps team. If the infrastructure is better, but which one is right for you? If a separate DevOps team handles the infrastructure, it is used to template and ensure stability. In this case, Terraform will be more convenient. If the infrastructure is created by developers who are used to core, want tests, and greater flexibility, Pulumi gives more freedom and better integration with the usual stack. 

But actually, you don`t have to choose one or the other. Pukumi supports the import of Terraform modules. Therefore, a hybrid model also takes place. Critical parts may remain on Terraform, and dynamic parts are written in Pulumi. Don`t be confused, because they both are extremely flexible. Still unsure Pulumi vs. Terraform for your next project? Let’s talk. We're here to help you review your current setup and support your team in creating a scalable, future-proof infrastructure approach!