Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy Reviews

Our use case is to plug platforms, especially applications that are 
based on website micro services such as containers. 

From our perspective this is a good solution that functions well and has good features. 

We are based in France and it's difficult to find people with sufficient training to assist us. I'd like to see companies with the right level of expertise to help my customers to move their projects from the traditional information system or infrastructures on premise to cloud but it's very difficult to find that here. Google is not well supported in France. 

The initial setup was not so easy. The average deployment time is between one and two years. It requires an initial feasibility study to understand the scope. Once that's established you need to find the path to help set up the right security parameters. The migration is done through scripting and codes. The deployment requires project managers and engineers.

I recommend this solution but it's important to find the right partner and be sure you have a suitable use case. I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Google Cloud Platform's Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy manages our organization's entire user database across the Middle East region for PwC. In addition, the solution is used to run virtual environments and storage solutions. It also serves our needs for AI or any other applications, including using Apps Script.

The solution's speed, processing power, and user functionality are some of its most valuable features.

I think the solution has some issues in document accessing and accessing of some data at times when you have automated scripts. So, maybe that could be made better in the solution. Sometimes, it just fails to get some documents, and then it resumes normally. Google should work to enhance the overall features of the solution.

I have experience with Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy for four and a half years. Also, I am using the latest version of the solution.

The solution offers medium to high stability to its users.

Though I never used the solution from a scalability standpoint, I assume that its scalability would be fine.

I never contacted the solution's technical support team because our organization has an internal IT department.

I previously used Azure. However, my company never used Azure.

The solution's initial setup process was fine. I assume that one person is required for the deployment process of the solution.

I would recommend the solution to those planning to use it in the future. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

This is a service. We use it for our business, for operations. 

This can be deployed easily. 

The solution is stable. It's reliable. 

There is good documentation available. There is a lot of information available online to help new users. 

It is hard to find expertise, ad most people deal with AWS. 

The solution is quite expensive. 

We'd like the solution to continue to make security features more robust. We need to protect against data leaks and also need to protect customer information. 

We've been using the solution for less than a year now. We're a new company.

This is a stable, reliable product. It does not have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We're a new company. This solution hasn't been used for too long, and we haven't really launched anything yet. Right now, it is still just internally dealt with. Likely less than 100 people deal with it right now. 

The support could be better. There needs to be more knowledgeable. It could be that there aren't enough people with a good knowledge base in our country. Most people are comfortable with AWS, and not necessarily with GCP. However, I don't typically deal with technical support. 

We also use AWS, which is what most companies use. 

The solution is very easy to set up and deploy. It's not a complex process. We can easily deploy applications, APIs, et cetera. However, I did not handle the initial setup myself and therefore cannot speak from firsthand experience. 

We do find it to be more expensive than AWS. 

I'm not sure what version of the solution we're using. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. There's not a problem with deploying it. The business decision comes more about the deployment and support costs and if that makes sense to everyone in the company. It's higher than AWS, which is something that needs to be considered, especially since most people are more familiar with AWS. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's well documented and does have available support. 

We are a customer and end-user. 

For Google Cloud Platform (GCP), we use it as our infrastructure. We host our infrastructures and create our machines, services and automation pipelines. For Google Cloud Identity, we use it as an identity portal for all of our applications. In addition, the internal application for the tools is used for monitoring the product.

The Cloud Identity in GCP is very good and reliable. It can be published fast. Also, Google Cloud Identity allows you to create groups and give access by group instead of by user. It allows you to create different access policies for every component of new infrastructure, and from a security perspective, this is good.

The Google Cloud UI has a lot of bugs, and they are working on enhancing it. There are a lot of things that need to be enhanced. For example, sometimes, the snapshot portal makes you have a schedule to create multiple snapshots when you have a huge infrastructure hosted on Google Cloud. Sometimes the browser or the UI hangs when looking for a specific snapshot. Also, Google Cloud support responds very quickly, but the UI still needs to have more enhancements related to the performance.

The integration of the solution for patching, updating, and installing the updates could be better. For example, they have a solution called "always patching," which needs to be enhanced. It is not purely a SaaS solution. It should be mostly platform as a solution, not software.

We have been using this solution for more than two years.

It is a stable solution. However, it would be more stable if Google cared more about the UI.

It is a scalable solution. Most of the teams in our company use this solution. The number of people needed for deployment and maintenance depends on whether it is a small or medium company solution. Only one person is needed for a small environment, while two or three are required for a medium environment. The team that supports the solution comprises network and security people. We plan to increase our usage of the solution as our customer base increases.

The technical support is good, and they are very responsive. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

I personally have used Azure and AWS in the past.

The initial setup was easy, and it was just plug-and-play. If you have a good understanding of infrastructure, this solution is perfect. It allows us to build an entire infrastructure for a startup or medium company in one hour. To do this, we need to try the script with the machines we need. Next, we need to define the CPU, memory and application we want to install on the machine. Then we can click and run the playbook or the tier forms script and go back after hours. By then, everything has been created, and we'll have an infrastructure that can handle a small startup.

The deployment depends on the complexity. If it is a small deployment, it might take less time, but a larger deployment will take more. For example, if we want to use a machine on GCP, it might take about two to three minutes, but if we have a huge deployment for multiple machines with multiple loop balances, records, and firewall rules, it might take 40 minutes to one hour. We completed the deployment in-house.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would recommend planning for everything and keeping it simple. It is also important to monitor consumption on the Google Cloud to ensure you are not paying for something you are not using.

Most cloud providers have the same features, but the main difference between them is the solution's availability and cost. Most of the features are only utilized at 30% or 50%.

The solution should have better integration. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is up to par. 

As with AWS, the solution is easy to install. 

50 or 60 days are needed for the deployment. 

Around three or four people are needed for the deployment and maintenance. 

The customer purchases an annually sponsored license. 

We have a maximum of around 20 customers making use of the solution. 

We support Azure, AWS and Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy, depending on the customer's architecture. 

For the most part, I would not recommend the solution to others, as our expertise is more with AWS and Azure.

I rate Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy as an eight out of ten. 

I work in a retail company. We have a physical data center where we use IBM servers. We want to get rid of them because every time we have a peak season, we have to add the infrastructure and then remove it when it is not the peak time. This process of adding the servers, taking notes, and bringing them down requires a lot of operational effort. There is a lot of manual intervention for adding the resources and configuring the servers, which is a lot of work for the company. That's why we are migrating all our applications. 

Google Cloud will help us in getting the additional assistance just by clicking a button. We basically want to automate instead of doing manual interventions. It is an organizational initiative to move to Google Cloud. At least five to ten teams are involved based on each application and around a hundred people are involved.

It is totally awesome in terms of scalability. Its scalability was the main reason for moving to Google Cloud. It also comes with a lot of features. We are satisfied with the features it has.

We have some challenges related to purging the data. We get a lot of data on a daily basis that has to be refreshed on the site, but we are seeing some challenges with that.

They can also include some third-party integration. We have one Akamai dependency. If they can come up with some API to talk to Akamai, it would be good.

I have been using this solution for one a half years. 

It is very stable.

Its scalability is really good.

Their technical support is good. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We get support from Google. There are some Google engineers who visit us on-site, and based on our problem statement, they are able to suggest different approaches and solutions.

Its price is good. For each server, we are saving $300 a month. We have at least thousands of servers. It is a huge cost reduction for us.

I would rate Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy an eight out of ten.

Our financial system is on Oracle-based, SaaS, hosted on the Oracle cloud. From different XML sources, we had to bring in high volumes of transactions into the financial system.

Before we put all of the data into the product and financial system, we need the data to go through some data messaging, and create some rules and derive some values. There are five or six million records every day.

Google has some very good tools on its platform. They have an App Engine and cluster-based programming so that you are able to achieve high performance. 

Because this is a multiple source system, we need a centralized place where all of the data rules are maintained and where all of the data transformations are performed.

Being from an Oracle background, Oracle doesn't have the tools that Google has to transform the high volume data.

It can perform that validation for the high volume transactions in less time, it can be transformed in minutes.

I like this solution. It has a lot of abilities such as data processing and cluster data creation.

The way they use the sources efficiently and the performance are good. The cost is also less, depending on the way that you code.

There is a lot of flexibility and a lot of control if you use this efficiently.

I would like to see the drag and drop features improved. They have a lot of hand-coded coding. Now they are doing less coding and more drag and drop and configuration. 

From a developer's perspective, it would make it simpler and also the less manual coding will lead to fewer defects. Less coding ability but most coding should be automated using a drag and drop functionality.

The setup could be more user-friendly.

In the next release, I would like to see improved drag and drop features, less coding abilities, or zero coding abilities. This would mean that you can do it by using your configurations, or even when you drag and drop it can be an orchestration so that anyone can do it. It would not be just some hand-coded kind of development that will be used by developers in the future.

We are typically a solution provider and we implemented this solution twelve months ago.

It's a stable product.

The scalability is really good.

There are not many end-users who come in and log in every day, because all of these transformations are completed automatically. From the administration standpoint, there are three or four people taking care of the databases and the application layer. The product is all automated and it's a matter of a back and forth thing.

I have not contacted Google support.

We were using Oracle. Previously, we were not using any products. Other products such as JCS and ICS are not this kind of solution. They are that capable. Oracle may have some other products, but I am not aware of it.

The initial setup was ok, although it can be made to be more user-friendly.

The length of deployment depends on the client's requirements. This particular client has very stringent requirements and it had to go through multiple QA processes. It did take some time but that had to do with the change in management.

You need three or four people with varying skillsets if you are implementing this. We had approximately five for this.

I think that the cost is metered based on the data, but I don't have the details.

This is an awesome product.

This solution is pretty automated. When you come from an administrative standpoint, they come and just do some maintenance now and then. They're very few.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is that they have to be very careful. Though this has all of the capabilities, be very careful. Before they engage in the design, you have to understand the volume of transactions you are going to have. What are the turnaround times that you need and the performance considerations? Depending on that, you have to define the architecture of the solution. There are various factors.

There is a thought process before you go into the developing mode.

You have to go through many different people and understand what the restrictions of the various databases that Google has provided are. You have a lot of tools to select before you start developing. There are many tools on this platform and you have to pick the right ones for the right solution. Cost and performance on this type of solution dictate that.

A thorough analysis should be done before you get into this because it's not easy.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for data engineering, data preparation, and AI.

The tool is really good, especially for ease of implementation and having many options. We can build complex data pipelines and AI models, like web-based AI assistants or chatbots.

Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy should improve stability. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

My company has 10-15 users. 

Support is good, and there is lots of material available online. We usually don't need to call someone, but if we do, it's okay.

straightforward to set up and easy to learn. There are lots of training materials and hands-on labs, making it easy to onboard new team members. Our engineers really like the platform.

There are different pricing plans depending on data volumes and services, but it's comparable to other providers. The value and benefits depend on what we're developing and the specific use case.

I rate Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy an eight out of ten. I'd recommend it. We use both Azure and GCP, and they're both really good. It depends on client preference.