Google Container Engine vs Kubernetes comparison

"The tool is very powerful, scalable, and easy to manage. Its autoscaling features helped us save costs."

"We find the smooth, instant fail-safes in this solution to be very useful, as this allows for easy revival of dying quads or failing applications."

"All the current features are quite harmonic."

"The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is container orchestration."

"Kubernetes provides scalable clustering for containers and other means of deployment."

"Offers a crucial feedback process"

"Kubernetes offers a lot of great features such as scalability and great portability of applications."

"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the scalability."

"Kubernetes' most valuable features are scaling, deployment, and container management."

"Google Container Engine needs to be able to manage network products."

"The management needs to be improved."

"One feature I would actually like to see is the network monitoring part. When we talk about communities, it's mostly the computer side. But it does have some enhancements on the networking side which they have recently released. I would like to see more enhancement where we can monitor the networks of the Kubernetes cluster or the Kubernetes workloads."

"It would be useful to have a basic and stable interface for monitoring and quick deployment purposes, especially when the deployments are big like a proof of concept or proof of technology. Currently, you need to use the Kubernetes console for all functionalities. It is not a quick-to-learn product if you are not from a Linux background. You need to be very skilled at Linux to learn it quickly. It took me two to three months because I mostly work with Microsoft products. For people who are not from a Linux background, the learning curve is a little bit longer."

"There is not a large ecosystem surrounding Kubernetes, making it difficult to identify the right problem due to the vast number of solutions."

"It's complex to manage and requires specialists."

"The lack of native support for billing and self-service capabilities is an area Kubernetes could improve. This requires the use of third-party integrations or managed services in order for customers to be able to deploy clusters on their own. It would be beneficial to have these features built-in into the Kubernetes platform."

"I'm expecting more improvement on the UI development side, which can be reflected in each object that is part of Kubernetes, like the Pod, deployment set, ReplicaSet, ConfigMap, Secrets, and PersistentVolume."

"Lacks some scalability and more user-friendly operability."

"The tool's pricing is medium."

"Kubernetes is an open-source solution that can be free. We have some distribution with licenses, such OpenShift and Tucows in Amazon. They are billing services."

"This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs associated with its use."

"We use the solution's open-source version."

"Kubernetes is free; it's open-source software."

"The solution is open source and has no fees."

"Kubernetes is open source. But we have to manage Kubernetes as a team, and the overhead is a bit high. Compared with the platforms like Cloud Foundry, which has a much less operational overhead. Kubernetes, I have to manage the code, and I have to hire the developers. If someone has a product, a developer should know exactly what he's writing or high availability, and all those things may differ the costs."

"If you're using a public cloud, the cost depends on the number of nodes you are planning to deploy Kubernetes on."

"I am using the solution's open-source version."