We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Komodor 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."The initial setup is very easy. We can create our cluster using the command line, or using our console."
"We hardly have a breakdown. It's been very stable."
"The initial setup was very easy because it's like a Google platform as a service. It's just one button to set it up. The deployment took only a few minutes."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is used for orchestrating Docker containers. We have 30 or 40 customers working with this solution now. We'll probably see 10 to 15 percent growth in the number of customers using Google Kubernetes Engine in the future."
"Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."
"The logs are important for detecting problems in our clusters."
"The scalability is the best feature."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective."
"The more time we use Komodor the more we save. Currently, we have seen around a ten percent return on investment."
"The event timeline has been super helpful, enabling us to overlay node events in the same timeline as deployment events... That helps an engineer very quickly troubleshoot without having to do too much digging."
"The service overview is definitely the most valuable feature. With it, I can see all the services and see if they're healthy or not without having to go specifically into each workflow individually. It has been immensely helpful for us whenever we've had network issues or other such issues. We've been able to use Komodor and see at a glance where there might be potential issues."
"The most valuable aspect is the speed with which I can narrow down what's going on. Usually, I look at the overview of events and then the timeline of an event and the status of the logs to quickly check what's happening or what has happened."
"Komodor's multi-cluster centralized event timeline is the most valuable feature."
"I think that security is an important point, and there should be additional features for the evaluation of data in containers that will create a more secure environment for usage in multi-parent models."
"The pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."
"The product could be cheaper."
"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 product’s visible allocation feature needs improvement."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes."
"Their documentation is a little here and there. Sometimes, the information is not clear or updated. Their documentation should be a little bit better."
"I would like to see improvements in how the product is installed. We've already communicated these things directly to Komodor. One feature we would like to see is for Komodor to be highly available on the clusters. Currently, it's only able to run in one instance within the cluster."
"Komodor's visibility could be improved."
"One thing we don't have visibility into, which I would love to have, is metrics, such as user logins and usage. It's really hard to know what people are doing when I don't have any metrics on that directly."
"I like the alerts that Komodor provides, but I think the alert interface could be improved."
"I hope that the cost analytics and resource usage allocation areas will see further development. For example, where we can now see if the pods are over- or under-provisioned, I wouldn't mind higher-level development."
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Komodor is ranked 12th in Container Management with 5 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Komodor is rated 8.8. 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 Komodor writes "Provides extensive visibility into our nodes and has been incredibly useful in freeing up our DevOps staff for other projects". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, VMware Tanzu Mission Control and OpenShift Container Platform, whereas Komodor is most compared with Portainer, Amazon EKS and Rancher Labs. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Komodor report.
See our list of best Container Management vendors.
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.
