We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Illumio 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."Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) takes care of managing Kubernetes, including the main control plane. It also offers solutions for monitoring resources and handling external traffic, which is essential for us. Being a cloud-native solution, it relieves us from worrying about these operational aspects."
"The main advantage of GKE is that it is a managed service. This means that Google is responsible for managing the master node in the Kubernetes cluster system. As a result, we can focus on deploying applications to the slaves, while Google handles any updates and security patches. The fact that GKE is fully integrated into the Google ecosystem, including solutions such as BigQuery and VertexAI. This makes it easier for us to integrate these tools into our process. This integration ultimately speeds up our time to market and reduces the time and effort spent on managing infrastructure. The managed aspect of GKE allows us to simply deploy and utilize it without having to worry about the technicalities of infrastructure management."
"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."
"The product has no downtime."
"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."
"It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best."
"Stability-wise, this solution is really good."
"The product’s dashboard is very intuitive."
"The most valuable feature of Illumio Adaptive Security Platform is monitoring. When I have no requirement from the other application, I can use the web block traffic to build."
"It has helped us to understand internal network visibility and firewall policy implementation. We use the product to simplify firewall policy implementation."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The product provides visibility into how the applications communicate and how the network protocols are being used."
"The flexibility of the solution is its most valuable feature."
"The solution helps to maintain logs and monitor activities. It also helps us with access management. The tool helps us to secure organizational data that include files."
"The features that I have found most useful is the ability to centralize all the rules and then distribute them across various locations. However, I've encountered challenges related to tagging policies, which can be complex to devise. It's a matter that requires careful consideration and stakeholder involvement before implementing such policies."
"The Explorer allows you to know the traffic between source and destination."
"The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are. It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better."
"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration."
"The product could be cheaper."
"The monitoring part requires some serious improvements in Google Kubernetes Engine, as it does not have very good monitoring consoles."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"While the GKE cluster is secure, application-level security is an essential aspect that needs to be addressed. The security provided by GKE includes the security of communication between nodes within the cluster and the basic features of Kubernetes security. However, these features may not be sufficient for the security needs of an enterprise. Additional security measures must be added to ensure adequate protection. It has become a common practice to deploy security tools within a Kubernetes cluster. It would be ideal if these tools were included as part of the package, as this is a standard requirement in the industry. Thus, application-level security should be integrated into GKE for improved security measures."
"The customer service is lagging a bit. It could be better."
"Some of the features that can be improved is offer additional guidance on creating an effective and risk-free tagging policy would be highly beneficial."
"I would like to see better data security in the product."
"Illumio Adaptive Security Platform could improve by supporting more operating systems. For example, Cisco and Apache appliances."
"It requires a low-level re-architecting of the product."
"The product’s agents don't work very well in OT environments."
"The interaction we've had with the support team hasn't been ideal. Technical support should be improved."
"The solution is very basic and doesn't do anything other than the orchestration of layer four endpoint firewall rules."
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Illumio is ranked 4th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 8 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Illumio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Google Kubernetes Engine writes "The auto-scaling feature helps during peak hours, but the support is not great". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Illumio writes "Pprevents attackers or threats from spreading or moving laterally". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and Rancher Labs, whereas Illumio is most compared with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Zscaler Internet Access and Microsoft Defender for Cloud. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Illumio report.
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.