Which solution will meet these requirements?

Explanations:

Moving the website to an Amazon S3 bucket allows for serving static content directly from S3, which is cost-effective and scalable. Using Amazon CloudFront as a content delivery network (CDN) improves performance by caching content at edge locations, reducing latency for users worldwide. This solution minimizes hosting costs while efficiently handling increasing traffic.

While moving the website to an S3 bucket is a good idea for serving static content, configuring an Amazon ElastiCache cluster is unnecessary and adds additional costs. ElastiCache is typically used for caching dynamic content or data from databases, which is not relevant for static website hosting.

AWS Amplify is suitable for hosting static websites, but configuring an Application Load Balancer (ALB) is not necessary in this case. ALB is typically used for routing traffic to multiple EC2 instances, which is not needed for a static website hosted on Amplify. This option could also lead to higher costs without providing benefits.

Moving the website to AWS Amplify is a good option for static content hosting, but configuring EC2 instances to cache the website introduces unnecessary complexity and costs. Amplify is designed to efficiently serve static content directly, so using EC2 instances for caching is redundant and not cost-effective.