Amazon Elastic Container Service vs Google Kubernetes Engine comparison

"I use the tool to manage containerized applications. What I like about Amazon ECS is the interface it provides. Although the configurations can be extensive, such as setting up auto-scaling groups and configuring separate tasks and services for each application, the interface makes it manageable."

"The solution has good performance."

"Good documentation and very straightforward to implement and use."

"Amazon Elastic Container Service is more stable."

"In seven years, we have not faced a single second of downtime."

"For me, the best feature of ECS is Fargate because I don't have to manage anything. Instead, everything is managed by AWS and all I have to do, in essence, is configure my containers and deploy them."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is a flexible product from Amazon. You can put it in the Auto Scaling group for high availability. There are also a lot of choices for pricing."

"ECS is flexible and easy to use."

"The feature that I like the most is the ease of use as compared to AWS. Its ease of use is very high, and I can quickly deploy clusters with a simple template."

"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment."

"On the tip of a command, you can scale in or scale out, and it offers every robust platform to implement DevOps processes for your automation solutions. The product fully supports the IaC concept."

"I am satisfied with the stability offered by the solution."

"We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution."

"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."

"It is easy to use and deploy."

"Stability is perfect for me."

"It's a complex tool and should be simplified."

"For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations."

"Probably, they should include automated graphing, and monitoring solutions."

"While it is generally stable, there have been some issues, especially when working on client projects where troubleshooting was needed."

"I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. It easily dies."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service needs to improve the menu design. It needs to improve deployment with better documentation."

"The solution's pricing could be improved."

"The solution needs to improve backup and pricing."

"The tool's configuration features need improvement."

"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."

"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."

"I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten."

"t is not very stable."

"The user interface could be improved."

"Google Kubernetes Engine's cost should be improved because it is high."

"The network configuration has to be simplified."

"The pricing of Amazon EC2 Container Service is average."

"Our client is paying between $400 and $500 USD per month for this service."

"The solution's cost could be reduced."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is worth the money."

"The pricing is good."

"Amazon Elastic Container Service's price is good."

"The solution is expensive, but not too much."

"Amazon Elastic Container Service has a decent price, which is neither cheap nor expensive."

"This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing."

"The price for Google Kubernetes Engine could be lower - I'd rate its pricing at three out of five."

"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. The tool costs around 3000 dollars per month. There are no additional costs apart from these."

"The tool's licensing costs are yearly."

"I would rate Kubernetes' pricing four out of five."

"Initially, Google Kubernetes Engine was a little bit cheaper, but now its prices have been increased compared to the pricing model and the features that are made available by its competitors."

"Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice."

"We are planning to use external support, and hire a commercial partner for it."