We performed a comparison between Azure Red Hat OpenShift and Google App Engine based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two PaaS Clouds solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten."
"The solution's support and its automation tool that ensures we are secure and appropriately configured are the most valuable features of Azure Red Hat OpenShift."
"It has a feature to automatically scale up or scale down. If my application is running in peak hours, it will automatically increase."
"It supports AKS and other projects like Kubernetes or EKS."
"In Kubernetes, when traffic goes out of a pod, it has to have its own IP address. Every service that's going out requires another IP. But with OpenShift, you don't have to deal with any of those IPs because they use NAT."
"The most valuable features of the solution are accessibility and scalability."
"Google App Engine's most valuable feature is self-management. You do not have to manage the infrastructure underneath where all the functions are happening, such as load balancing deployment and version management, they are managed by the system itself."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"Seurity features - unauthorized individuals are unable to access certain applications."
"The initial setup is okay. It's not too complex. Deployment took about one day."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, considering that there is good documentation explaining the implementation part of it."
"The WhatApp feature is the most valuable."
"One of the things to notice is that this product can be expensive."
"They need to improve the core licensing model."
"Azure Red Hat OpenShift's support should be improved."
"Automation could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in terms of orchestration. While Azure orchestration offers valuable features, it's worth noting that it may not match the level of orchestration provided by Kubernetes itself."
"The product is expensive."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers."
"The documentation and community are lacking for this product."
"I would like a simpler deployment tool on laptops. It is a bit complicated at the moment. We know how to do it, but it could be easier to deploy it on laptops."
"Data consumption of the device could be improved."
"There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution."
"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
Azure Red Hat OpenShift is ranked 10th in PaaS Clouds with 7 reviews while Google App Engine is ranked 11th in PaaS Clouds with 23 reviews. Azure Red Hat OpenShift is rated 8.4, while Google App Engine is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Red Hat OpenShift writes "Runs on every platform; makes it easy to adapt to Kubernetes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google App Engine writes "Simplifies app development process for businesses". Azure Red Hat OpenShift is most compared with OpenShift, Amazon AWS and VMware Tanzu Application Service, whereas Google App Engine is most compared with Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, Heroku, IBM Cloud Private and IBM Public Cloud. See our Azure Red Hat OpenShift vs. Google App Engine report.
See our list of best PaaS Clouds vendors.
We monitor all PaaS Clouds 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.
