Google Kubernetes Engine vs HPE Ezmeral Container Platform comparison

"The scalability is the best feature."

"I am impressed with the product's output scaling."

"The most valuable aspect of Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) is its managed nature, which significantly reduces the burden on our platform team."

"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective."

"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."

"It is easy to use and deploy."

"The most valuable feature of Google Kubernetes Engine is how you can automatically scale and load balance."

"The product has valuable security features. It can connect with multiple DevOps tools."

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

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

"It needs to support load balancing."

"Our critique is that we have to do too much work to get the cluster production-ready."

"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."

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

"Their documentation is a little here and there. Sometimes, the information is not clear or updated. Their documentation should be a little bit better."

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

"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."

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

"The modernization in Ezmeral could be improved."

"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 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."

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

"The product is a little bit expensive."

"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."

"It is competitive, and it is not expensive. It is almost competitive with AWS and the rest of the cloud solutions. We are spending around 3K USD per month. There are four projects that are currently running, and each one is incurring a cost of around 3K USD."

"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."

"Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up."

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