Google Kubernetes Engine vs HPE Ezmeral Container Platform comparison

"GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need."

"The initial setup was very easy because it's like a Google platform as a service. It's just one button to set it up. The deployment took only a few minutes."

"The product’s dashboard is very intuitive."

"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."

"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."

"The deployment of the cluster is very easy."

"The most beneficial feature is the ability to separate each project and manage permissions more effectively."

"I rate Google Kubernetes Engine a ten out of ten."

"The stability of the HPE Ezmeral Container Platform is good, and I rate it an eight out of ten."

"If customers focus on primary apps or if they are using them for data science, this is a good solution."

"The console for this solution could be improved because it is very limited."

"I would like to see the ability to create multiple notebook configurations."

"We would like to see some improvement in the ease of integration with this solution."

"I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit."

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

"The tool's configuration features need improvement."

"The notifications are not informative."

"There is room for improvement in this solution. For example, auto-scaling can be complex. We expect it to be easier to set up and manage, even for our customers."

"HPE Ezmeral Container Platform is not user-friendly and has many parts that are more difficult than Cloudera. It is also a complex solution and has low features for data management."

"The modernization in Ezmeral could be improved."

"Pricing is a bit expensive compared to some other products, but it's acceptable."

"The pricing for GKE is dependent on the type of machine or virtual machine (VM) that is selected for the nodes in the cluster. There is a degree of flexibility in choosing the specifications of the machine, such as the number of CPUs, GPUs, and so on. Google provides a variety of options, allowing the user to create the desired cluster composition. However, the cost can be quite steep when it comes to regional clusters, which are necessary for high availability and failover. This redundancy is crucial for businesses and is required to handle an increase in requests in case of any issues in one region, such as jumping to a different region in case of a failure in the Toronto region. While it may be tempting to choose the cheapest type of machines, this may result in a limited capacity and user numbers, requiring over-provisioning to handle additional requests, such as those for a web application."

"The solution's price is reasonable."

"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."

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

"I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price. The product is competitively priced."

"The product is a little bit expensive."

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