We performed a comparison between Google App Engine and OpenShift based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Administering App Engine is simple; it has intuitive UIs and a very scalable app engine."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."
"The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"Self-provisioning support saves a lot of time and unnecessary work from the system administrator who can use this time to run and monitor the infrastructure. For the developer, this means less time waiting for the provisioning and excellent flexibility for development, testing, and production. Also, in such systems it is easy for developers to monitor applications even after deployment."
"The company had a product called device financing, where the company worked as a partner with Google. It allowed customers to take mobile phones on loan or via credit. When we migrated those services to OpenShift in February last year, we were able to sell over 100,000 devices in a single day, which was very good."
"Provides support throughout the whole platform."
"The virtualization of my APIs means I no longer have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions."
"Valuable features include auto-recreate of pod if pod fails; fast rollback, with one click, to previous version."
"We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this."
"The scalability of OpenShift combined with Kubernetes is good. At least from the software standpoint, it becomes quite easy to handle the scalability through configuration. You need to constantly monitor the underlying infrastructure and ensure that it has adequate provisioning. If you have enough infrastructure, then managing the scalability is quite easy which is done through configuration."
"I am impressed with the product's security features."
"The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."
"I would like a simpler deployment tool on laptops. It is a bit complicated at the moment. We know how to do it, but it could be easier to deploy it on laptops."
"I think there's still a lot that can be done with Google Meet and the video conferencing part of it. It could be more dynamic in terms of what can be done with it."
"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"I am limited to sending a photo to five people. I want to be able to send a photo to many people, not just five."
"The area for improvement is mostly in support for legacy applications."
"It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory."
"This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution."
"One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic."
"Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required."
"The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly."
"The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal."
"OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets."
Google App Engine is ranked 11th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews while OpenShift is ranked 4th in PaaS Clouds with 53 reviews. Google App Engine is rated 8.2, while OpenShift is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Google App Engine writes "Simplifies app development process for businesses". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenShift writes "Provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints". Google App Engine is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Heroku, IBM Cloud Private and Amazon EC2, whereas OpenShift is most compared with Amazon AWS, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, Microsoft Azure, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Google Cloud. See our Google App Engine vs. OpenShift report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.