Google App Engine vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry comparison

Google and Broadcom are both solutions in the PaaS Clouds category. Google is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.4, while Broadcom is ranked #13. Google holds a 2.4% mindshare in PSP, compared to Broadcom’s 7.2% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Google users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of Broadcom users who would recommend it.

Google App Engine

Read 36 Google App Engine reviews

1,646 Views
1,498 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Read 15 Pivotal Cloud Foundry reviews

4,913 Views
4,864 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Google App Engine

Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Google App Engine and Pivotal Cloud Foundry are competing in the Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) category. Pivotal Cloud Foundry is often considered superior due to its robust features.

Features: Google App Engine supports automatic scaling, integrated storage, and flexible pricing. It is ideal for applications requiring automatic scalability and cost-effectiveness. Pivotal Cloud Foundry offers enterprise-grade features such as continuous integration, support for multiple development languages, and comprehensive DevOps tools. These features cater to complex projects and enterprise needs.

Room for Improvement: Google App Engine could improve its flexibility in supporting additional services beyond its standard offerings. Enhancing SQL database support and expanding its range of deployable languages could benefit users. For Pivotal Cloud Foundry, the complexity of the initial setup is an area for improvement. Simplifying the learning curve for new users and reducing setup time could make it more accessible. Improving integration with non-Java technologies would broaden its appeal.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Google App Engine is known for its simplified deployment process, making it suitable for startups or small businesses. Its exceptional customer service adds value for users seeking support. In contrast, Pivotal Cloud Foundry offers support for sophisticated deployment scenarios and enterprise-grade support, offering greater control but requiring a steeper learning curve.

Pricing and ROI: Google App Engine offers adaptable pricing and a low entry cost, providing faster ROI for small and medium-sized businesses. Its pricing model is advantageous for limited budgets. Pivotal Cloud Foundry, while having a higher initial cost, offers significant ROI for enterprises with its scalable, comprehensive features, making it more suitable for large-scale deployments.

To learn more, read our detailed Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,986 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Ranking in PaaS Clouds

13th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the PaaS Clouds category, the mindshare of Google App Engine is 2.4%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is 7.2%, down from 9.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

PaaS Clouds Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Google App Engine	2.4%
Pivotal Cloud Foundry	7.2%
Other	90.4%

PaaS Clouds

Featured Reviews

Rajesh Kadyan

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.

Read full review

reviewer2263239

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"What I find most beneficial about Google App Engine is that we do not need to manage it since it's a fully managed serverless platform, allowing us to spend more time on development rather than managing and maintaining configurations."

"Google App Engine is highly scalable and can integrate easily with other applications."

"The solution is serverless, so we don't have to operate it."

"It is simple to use. It is much simpler than AWS. It is also very powerful."

"The features of Google App Engine that I have found most valuable for my use cases include its easy deployment process, where there is minimal configuration required, allowing a few details in a configuration file before pushing it to Google App Engine, which auto-scales and requires less maintenance with no downtime over three years."

"What I appreciate most about Google App Engine is that the deployment is significantly easier compared to a conventional Linux platform."

"The zero infrastructure management is valuable, allowing me to focus on the code rather than the service."

"The product's setup and deployment phases are easy."

More Google App Engine pros

"PCF is open, so the applications run really smoothly and with little downtime."

"The most valuable features are the monitoring and the deployment is easier."

"It provides a set of developer-friendly tools that simplify application deployment."

"I find the ease of deployment and management of microservices to be the most valuable features. The platform also has good auto-scaling capabilities."

"We find its stability and scalability valuable."

"The most valuable feature of Pivotal Cloud Foundry is auto-healing and the plenty of other features that are provided."

"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very easy to use compared to other cloud technologies. It has a very good performance."

"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is very robust, especially for building Java."

More Pivotal Cloud Foundry pros

Cons

"The initial setup is complex as it is customized based on different clients, and it can range from one to three years, requiring niche-specific technical resources."

"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."

"Google Cloud support for Google App Engine is very poor, with unresponsive and unaware agents. It took them almost a month to inform me that SSH is not possible with private instances."

"There are two versions of Google App Engine: flexible and standard versions. I think they can improve by having only one version."

"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 interface and IDE, where I write code, could be improved. Unlike other IDEs like Visual Studio, it lacks easy access to available functions."

"There is limited customization because the sandbox environment restricts it."

"Currently, we have to use Google CLI and utilize Google App CLI SDKs for deployment. If options were available to enable these SDKs for Terraform and CloudFormation, it would be more helpful for executing one-click deployments."

More Google App Engine cons

"Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve on the technology it is a bit complex."

"Pivotal Cloud Foundry is not scalable, infinitely, because when you install it on a set of virtual machines it is very hard to scale. It's easy to scale on an application level, but not it is not similar to if you were using Amazon. Amazon you can scale thousands of applications."

"There are no synthetic application monitoring and real-time monitoring features."

"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."

"It should offer more security features."

"The Pivotal Cloud Foundry's initial setup has a learning curve for my team, but it was easy to use."

"Pivotal Cloud Foundry doesn't have certain advanced features."

"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."

More Pivotal Cloud Foundry cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"We pay the license yearly. It's about $6 a month, which is $72 a year per person, so it's about $500."

"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."

"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 price of Pivotal Cloud Foundry could improve. However, in this category of solutions, they are all expensive."

"The pricing is on the higher side and there are cheaper options available."

"Licensing is on a monthly basis and right now we pay $24/month. There are no other costs over and above that."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which PaaS Clouds solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

879,986 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user8586

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…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

University

10%

Educational Organization

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

38%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Large Enterprise	11

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Google App Engine?

The product's setup and deployment phases are easy.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure vs Google App Engine

Compared 22% of the time

Amazon AWS vs Google App Engine

Compared 19% of the time

Heroku vs Google App Engine

Compared 13% of the time

VMware Tanzu Platform vs Google App Engine

Compared 8% of the time

More Google App Engine Competitors

Microsoft Azure vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Compared 35% of the time

Red Hat OpenShift vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Compared 21% of the time

Amazon AWS vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Compared 14% of the time

Google Cloud vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Compared 6% of the time

Google Compute Engine vs Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Compared 1% of the time

More Pivotal Cloud Foundry Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Google App Engine

January 2026

Download Google App Engine product report

Buyer's Guide

Pivotal Cloud Foundry

December 2025

Download Pivotal Cloud Foundry product report

Also Known As

No data available

PCF, Pivotal Application Service (PAS), Pivotal Container Service (PKS), Pivotal Function Service (PFS)

Overview

Google App Engine is a Platform-as-a-Service (Paas) provider that equips web application developers with all the resources and tools that they need to develop, test, and run their applications on Google's infrastructure. Everything is built into the kit, so with one download of the SDK, you'll be well on your way to first-rate apps.

Google

Pivotal Cloud Foundry (PCF) is the leading enterprise PaaS, powered by Cloud Foundry. PCF provides a cloud-native application platform that allows you to continuously deliver any app to every major private and public cloud with a single platform. PCF is proven to accelerate feature delivery with higher developer productivity and a 200:1 developer to operator ratio. PCF's built-in security and self-healing capabilities reduce risk in your app portfolio while maintaining high-availability at scale to keep customer facing systems online even in the most challenging circumstances. pivotal.io

Broadcom

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

Buyer's Guide

Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry

December 2025

Free Report: Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry

Find out what your peers are saying about Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,986 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Google App Engine vs. Pivotal Cloud Foundry 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.