No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Google App Engine vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Google App Engine
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Pivotal Cloud Foundry
Ranking in PaaS Clouds
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of Google App Engine is 2.6%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is 5.7%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
PaaS Clouds Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Google App Engine2.6%
Pivotal Cloud Foundry5.7%
Other91.7%
PaaS Clouds
 

Featured Reviews

RK
Senior Engineer at Brillio
Have managed resources seamlessly thanks to robust platform capabilities
The areas of Google App Engine that I would to improve or enhance include its allowance for complete end-to-end deployment and scalability; however, it is manageable only for a few languages. For instance, it doesn't support languages C and C++, only basic support for Node.js, Java, and Ruby. It's not a comprehensive solution for all scenarios. Moreover, the security feature is based on IAM roles, but it should ideally be based on Active Directory (AD) roles. For IAM-based roles, we need to add the proper users and provide all security permissions manually. In an AD-based model, we would simply add users to a specific group, and all permissions would be inherited.
reviewer2263239 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
PCF allows for fine-grained configuration, especially regarding scaling but routing limitations
Something that can be done better is canary deployment. So, right now, we're using blue-green deployment. The support for canary deployment would be nice. A few things, such as what OpenShift does better are cluster management. Like, you can manage the entire thing together. Currently, it's possible to manage all the clusters, especially when it comes to cluster management using straightforward configuration. As of now, we have to handle each application instance individually, which means servicing them one by one. It would be better if we could perform these actions as a group or in a more streamlined manner. One more downside is actually the cost of this environment. So, major downside of Pivotal, it's the cost. So, the runtime running costs are very high. Extremely high.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"What I appreciate most about Google App Engine is that the deployment is significantly easier compared to a conventional Linux platform."
"Easy to upload from IDE."
"Google takes care of deploying the code to the clusters, monitoring, failover, and launching application instances as and when necessary."
"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."
"I've noticed measurable benefits and return on investment by choosing Google App Engine."
"Its ability to integrate with most devices helps users who have different or old devices."
"It is simple to use, much simpler than AWS, and also very powerful."
"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."
"PCF is open, so the applications run really smoothly and with little downtime."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very easy to use compared to other cloud technologies. It has a very good performance."
"The solution is stable and resilient. In our company, we do not even see any challenges with the solution."
"It is a scalable product...We are not facing any particular issues since most of the applications in our company are written in Java and .NET."
"PCF is open, so the applications run really smoothly and with little downtime."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to scale."
"The most valuable feature of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is the UI, it is easy to use."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very robust, especially for building Java."
 

Cons

"The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe."
"There is limited customization because the sandbox environment restricts it."
"One drawback is that the app needs to be written to be compatible with Google App Engine, making it not cloud agnostic, hindering straightforward migration to other platforms such as AWS."
"Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine."
"Difficult to assess how pricing is managed."
"I am limited to sending a photo to five people. I want to be able to send a photo to many people, not just five."
"When it comes to billing, I think they should include something that would give the client or user an indication of what's happening so they can be aware of how pricing is being managed."
"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."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is not scalable, infinitely, because when you install it on a set of virtual machines it is very hard to scale."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve the documentation. They are good, but they could improve more. Additionally, it would be beneficial if there were more use case examples."
"Regarding the setup phase, every step is a hurdle. With Pivotal Cloud Foundry, I won't get any proper resources for that. Even if I Google it, there is no proper solution for Pivotal Cloud Foundry."
"There are no synthetic application monitoring and real-time monitoring features and they should be included."
"In the next release, I would like to see easy integration with external tools."
"In the next release, they should offer additional applications for the databases, and improve the deployment experience."
"It is not straightforward to setup."
"Pivotal Cloud Foundry doesn't have certain advanced features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay the license yearly. It's about $6 a month, which is $72 a year per person, so it's about $500."
"I would like to have more free application with it. Some of the applications, I am paying more for them. I think that they must be free."
"If we don't know how to work with the tool, we might have some spikes in price."
"The price of Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve. However, in this category of solutions, they are all expensive."
"Licensing is on a monthly basis and right now we pay $24/month. There are no other costs over and above that."
"We do pay for the licensing cost because we have opted for a private cloud setup. So, it is a cloud setup, and we have to make payments based on the cloud size. I do not consider it very costly when comparing it to the market."
"The pricing is on the higher side and there are cheaper options available."
"You're paying for the number of virtual machines you want to install in the installation."
"The price of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is based on the customer's requirements. However, the price is comparable to other similar solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.
886,011 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user8586 - PeerSpot reviewer
Engineer at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees
Aug 14, 2013
Amazon vs Rackspace vs Microsoft vs Google: Cloud Hosting Services Comparison
Amazon Web Services, Rackspace OpenStack, Microsoft Windows Azure and Google are the major cloud hosting and storage service providers. Athough Amazon is top of them and is oldest in cloud market, Rackspace, Microsoft and Google are giving tough competition to each other and to Amazon also for…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
9%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
36%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Insurance Company
5%
Retailer
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google App Engine?
I believe it is reasonably priced. I've never heard anyone express that the licenses are too expensive.
What needs improvement with Google App Engine?
The error logging system in Google App Engine could be enhanced. While there are troubleshooting documents with Google-defined error logs, identifying the exact root cause can be challenging. Often...
What is your primary use case for Google App Engine?
My primary use case for Google App Engine is within the finance industry, dealing with enterprise-scale businesses.
Which would you recommend - Pivotal Cloud Foundry or OpenShift?
Pivotal Cloud Foundry is a cloud-native application platform to simplify app delivery. It is efficient and effective. The best feature is how easy it is to handle external services such as database...
 

Also Known As

No data available
PCF, Pivotal Application Service (PAS), Pivotal Container Service (PKS), Pivotal Function Service (PFS)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Khan Academy, Best Buy, Gigya, MetOffice, Getaround, Mimiboard, NewsLimited, WebFilings, and CloudLock.
Humana, Citibank, Mercedes Benz, Liberty Mutual, The Home Depot, GE, West Corp, Merrill Corporation, CoreLogic, Orange, Dish Network, Comcast, Bloomberg, Internal Revenue Service, Ford Motor Company, Garmin, Volkswagen, Solera, Allstate, US Air Force, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, ScotiaBank
Find out what your peers are saying about Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
886,011 professionals have used our research since 2012.