0.0000012 vs 0.000015 = 12.5x cheaper, _but_ conditions apply

In general, it all depends on the usage scenario. If you have A LOT of traffic but the ratio of blocked requests is low, Durable-Limiter can be way more cheap then the CF rate limiter.

On the other hand, if you have a high ratio of blocked requests, the CF rate limiter will be cheaper. The reason for this is the Worker invocations that add up while the CF rate-limiter will block the request before triggering the worker.

Costs of CF rate-limiter

• $0.05 / 10K of billable requests (after the first 10K)

Costs of Durable-limiter

• $0.5/million of the total requests (after the first 10M) in case of bundled worker or $0.15 / 1M of the total requests (after the first 1M) in case of unbound.
• $0.2/million of allowed requests (after the first 1M) for the Durable Object read op
• $1/million of allowed requests (after the first 1M) for the Durable Object write op

Important: Costs for the *duration* of the worker as well as traversing & delete stale storage objects are not included.

Which requests are considered billable?

The billable requests as described by CF consist of requests passing through the rate limiter without being blocked.

Billable requests are the same for both Durable-Limiter and CF's native limiter, the reason being that using efficient caching, we can avoid hitting the durable object after a 429 response.

Disclaimer

While I tried my best to make this as accurate as possible, I can't guarantee that the numbers are 100% correct. If you find any mistakes, please let me know (@honzabit on discord).

Back