We performed a comparison between Amazon Elastic Container Service and Google Kubernetes Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is user-friendly."
"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."
"Once you get the procedure right, and set a pattern, it just works."
"The tool helps us with maneuverability. Its most valuable feature is autoscaling."
"Scalability and availability are the most valuable features of Amazon Elastic Container Service."
"The most valuable feature is the volume size they offer."
"The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability."
"The initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."
"The product’s dashboard is very intuitive."
"The features are typical Kubernetes, but Google One offers a better GUI-based deployment. It's more sophisticated and integrates well with other services, providing a better customer experience."
"The scalability is the best feature."
"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."
"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."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is used for orchestrating Docker containers. We have 30 or 40 customers working with this solution now. We'll probably see 10 to 15 percent growth in the number of customers using Google Kubernetes Engine in the future."
"The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The solution must improve backup and compatibility around OS like Windows and Mac."
"The solution is expensive compared to other alternatives like Azure."
"I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. It easily dies."
"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."
"EC2 is not self-explanatory enough."
"The solution's user experience and management are really bad."
"Billing is extremely complex."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"The user interface could be improved."
"t is not very stable."
"Our critique is that we have to do too much work to get the cluster production-ready."
"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."
"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
"The notifications are not informative."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
More Amazon Elastic Container Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Elastic Container Service is ranked 8th in Container Management with 46 reviews while Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews. Amazon Elastic Container Service is rated 8.4, while Google Kubernetes 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 Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". Amazon Elastic Container Service is most compared with OpenShift Container Platform, Microsoft Azure Container Service, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Linode, whereas Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, VMware Tanzu Mission Control, OpenShift Container Platform and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Amazon Elastic Container Service vs. Google Kubernetes Engine report.
See our list of best Container Management 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.
