"It has an Auto Scaling group feature. We can use this feature to have an Auto Scaling group to specify a minimum and maximum count for all types of configurations. Based on the specified values, Amazon Elastic Container Service scales the required CPU environmental metrics."
"They handle the backup process quite well. They automatically encapsulate it, including container backups, without relying heavily on the client's involvement. This is a significant advantage compared to other providers where clients often need to manage the process more independently. It's a feature that I find suitable and beneficial."
"The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 Container Service is its flexibility."
"Amazon Elastic Container Service is more stable."
"What I really like about Amazon ECS is its simplicity and ease of use. Amazon also has really good security."
"I like Amazon EC2 Container Service's elasticity."
"It has helped our organization greatly and especially on weekends because we have many transactions as our users are buying some kind of tools and paying online."
"The product makes things easier since it's self-managed. Therefore, there is less administration workload and operational costs."
"Storage is one of the most beneficial features of cloud providers, specifically Azure because when you are working in their cloud environment, you can easily use a storage interface and a storage object that is provided by Microsoft Azure. In a local environment, you have to be involved in establishing and setting up distributed storage file systems for containers which are very difficult and complex. In a cloud environment, you are not concerned about the storage and the dashboard provides you with storage objects with high availability."
"The most valuable feature is that you don't have to maintain the infrastructure."
"Microsoft Azure Container Service has a good level of stability."
"Visualization is the most important feature."
"The most valuable features are that it is simple, and the compression of the data."
"It's a great product if you are in a Microsoft environment."
"The solution needs to be more usable."
"The product can become expensive if you don't choose what you want."
"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."
"The solution is expensive compared to other alternatives like Azure."
"My company has faced some stability issues with Amazon EC2 Container Service."
"We noticed a problem where our container doesn't always run, and the traffic in our secured license exceeds 100%, leading to increased container costs. We are working to understand and reduce this traffic to control costs."
"Probably, they should include automated graphing, and monitoring solutions."
"Standard support could be more helpful and responsive."
"I wasn't very impressed with the documentation."
"In terms of the container strategy, they need to make it more compliant with the Linux OS."
"Since the product is fully managed, it is expensive."
"In the future, I would like to see it generalized and have the ability to better integrate with open-source tools."
"The customization is an area that needs improvement."
"f Microsoft Azure can provide GUI dashboards for end-users and administrators to work separately to manage all the Kubernetes clusters without a need to connect to Azure environments and through CLI it would be better."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Azure Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 1st in Containers as a Service (CaaS) with 46 reviews while Microsoft Azure Container Service is ranked 2nd in Containers as a Service (CaaS) with 7 reviews. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Container Service is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon Elastic Container Service writes "An easy to compute solution that can be used to take complete workloads to the cloud". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Container Service writes "Reliable, expandable and great for Microsoft-heavy environments". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with OpenShift Container Platform, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Linode and Google Kubernetes Engine, whereas Microsoft Azure Container Service is most compared with .
See our list of best Containers as a Service (CaaS) vendors.
We monitor all Containers as a Service (CaaS) 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.