If you’ve been following my blog, you know that I’m a huge fan of Terraform. HashiCorp’s declarative configuration language has been my go‑to tool for provisioning everything from S3 buckets to complex Kubernetes clusters. Recently, however, I’ve been dabbling with the AWS Cloud Development Kit (CDK), which lets you define cloud resources using familiar programming languages like TypeScript, Python and Java.

In this post we’ll examine some of the reasons teams consider migrating from Terraform to the CDK and discuss the trade‑offs involved.

Why consider the CDK?

Familiar syntax and rich abstractions

The CDK allows you to define cloud infrastructure using imperative constructs. If you’re already comfortable with TypeScript or Python, you can leverage loops, conditionals and functions to compose your infrastructure. Constructs (pre‑built abstractions) encapsulate best practices; for example, a Lambda function construct can automatically create the necessary IAM role and log group.

Strong integration with AWS services

Because the CDK is maintained by AWS, new service features often appear in the CDK before they are available as Terraform providers. If your team is on the bleeding edge of AWS, the CDK may give you faster access to new functionality.

Unit testing and compile‑time checks

Using a general‑purpose language enables unit testing of your infrastructure definitions. You can write tests that assert properties about your stacks, such as “all S3 buckets must have versioning enabled”. The CDK also benefits from type checking—mistakes like passing a string where a number is expected are caught at compile time rather than during deployment.

Drawbacks of moving away from Terraform

Ecosystem maturity

Terraform has a massive community and ecosystem. Providers exist for virtually every cloud and SaaS platform, while the CDK primarily targets AWS (though the Terraform CDK exists as a hybrid solution). If you manage multi‑cloud infrastructure or need to integrate with third‑party services, Terraform remains a strong choice.

State management and drift detection

Terraform’s state files are explicit, enabling you to see exactly which resources are managed and to detect drift between configuration and real‑world infrastructure. The CDK uses CloudFormation under the hood, which also tracks state but can obscure some of the low‑level details. Tools like Terraform Cloud or Atlantis also provide collaboration features that CDK lacks out of the box.

Learning curve and team readiness

While using TypeScript for infrastructure may appeal to developers, it can be a barrier for operations engineers who are more comfortable with declarative languages. Migrating to the CDK also requires rethinking your mental model: instead of writing static .tf files, you’ll be compiling code into CloudFormation templates. The question becomes whether the productivity gains are worth the cost of retraining the team.

Hybrid approaches

You don’t have to pick one tool exclusively. I’ve had success using Terraform for baseline resources (like networking, IAM and shared services) while using the CDK for higher‑level application stacks that require loops or integration tests. The CDK for Terraform (CDKTF) provides another option: you write TypeScript or Python but still generate Terraform plans. This can provide the best of both worlds—imperative programming with the maturity of Terraform providers.

Conclusion

Migrating from Terraform to the AWS CDK is not a decision to make lightly. The CDK shines when you need to encapsulate complex logic, leverage familiar programming languages and stay on the cutting edge of AWS services. Terraform remains unbeatable for its provider ecosystem, simplicity and battle‑tested workflows. In many cases, a hybrid approach—leveraging each tool where it excels—may be the most pragmatic path forward. As always, assess your team’s expertise, the complexity of your infrastructure and your long‑term maintenance goals before committing to a new toolchain.