Stream is pretty good for live video, certainly cheaper than AWS IVS (AKA, Twitch.tv underlying infrastructure), but for VOD traditional per GB charges fit that model better. With VOD the key is customised encoding + CDN + storage. But stream is completely managed, no control over quality or bitrate, codec or other. Remember it's 1 minute for 240p, 360p, 480p, 720p or 1080p, even when those data rates can be under 1Mbps or 350Mb/hour. At which, no, would be the answer. It really depends your use case. It's also 1 minute for loading, 1 minute for changing resolutions, regardless if viewed. The tradeoff comes at 1) How good is your compression 2) How big are your files If your data rate is low/compressed well, 3) Do you need control over your codecs 4) Do you need control over your licensing of videos & DRM, than Stream is not yet near AWS/Cloudfront, cause that product from AWS is like 5+ years old & runs Disney, Netflix*, HBO, Prime, Binge etc etc Personally think these should be separated, VOD (Custom encoding + CDN + Storage) packaged by minute or GB, Live Stream (Managed encoder + CDN + Storage) packaged by minute, Audio/Podcasts, as the data usage is immensely different & they're very different products, I can't imagine Disney using Stream to deliver 4K, HDR, Dolby content, as the encoder wouldn't allow it. But Disney would use the CDN + their custom encoding, which is mostly AWS AEM + Akamai/Cloudfront (terrible pricing), as the requirements of VOD encoding simply don't fit a one size fits all AVC model. For live video, custom encoding is less of a concern to none of a concern, latency & quality are more important.