A company wants to host and manage static websites in AWS. The site source code is stored in various version control systems (AWS CodeCommit, Bitbucket, GitHub). The company requires phased deployments (development, staging, UAT, production) triggered by merges to corresponding branches, uses HTTPS for all traffic, and prefers a solution that does not require continuously running servers. Which option provides the required functionality with the LEAST operational overhead?

AWS Amplify is the correct choice because it directly addresses all requirements with the least operational overhead. It natively supports hosting static websites, integrates with various version control systems (CodeCommit, Bitbucket, GitHub), and provides built-in CI/CD for phased deployments triggered by branch merges. Amplify automatically provisions HTTPS and is serverless, eliminating the need to manage infrastructure. Elastic Beanstalk is designed for web applications, not just static sites, and while it supports multiple environments and CI/CD, it involves managing EC2 instances, increasing operational overhead. Hosting in S3 buckets with CodePipeline and CodeBuild is a viable option for static sites but requires more manual setup for CI/CD and HTTPS compared to Amplify. Hosting on EC2 instances is the most operationally intensive, requiring continuous server management, custom deployment scripts, and manual HTTPS configuration, directly contradicting the "least operational overhead" and "no continuously running servers" requirements.