We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service and Google Container Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Amazon Web Services (AWS), VMware and others in Container Management."Implementing the product has helped me monitor the parameters. I utilize tools like CloudWatch and AWS systems to track these parameters. If any issues arise, I alert our developer team to address and resolve them. The product helps to have a global file system. Also, it helps in data replication from region to region."
"The containerization is a valuable feature for us."
"Scalability and availability are the most valuable features of Amazon Elastic Container Service."
"The most valuable feature is the volume size they offer."
"The most valuable feature, after using Amazon EC2 Container Service for two years, is to set the availability and also for network throughput."
"The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex."
"The cloud services are readily available."
"I like the per-second billing."
"The tool is very powerful, scalable, and easy to manage. Its autoscaling features helped us save costs."
"EC2 is not self-explanatory enough."
"It's a complex tool and should be simplified."
"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."
"The product can become expensive if you don't choose what you want."
"Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved."
"Amazon Elastic Container Service should simplify its management. It can be difficult for someone who doesn't have much experience with the tool. Also, the tool needs to add the ability to manage networks."
"The solution needs to be more usable."
"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."
"Google Container Engine needs to be able to manage network products."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Google Container Engine is ranked 14th in Container Management with 1 review. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Google Container Engine is rated 8.0. 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 Google Container Engine writes "Has autoscaling features that helps to save costs ". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with OpenShift Container Platform, Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, Google Kubernetes Engine and Linode, whereas Google Container Engine is most compared with .
See our list of best Container Management vendors and best Containers as a Service (CaaS) vendors.
We monitor all Container Management 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.
