We performed a comparison between Google Kubernetes Engine and Symantec Data Center Security 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."Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process."
"We used automation for the initial setup. It was okay. So it wasn't too complex."
"Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective."
"The solution simplified deployment, making it more automated. Previously, Docker required manual configuration, often done by developers on their computers. However, with Google Kubernetes Engine, automation extends to configuration, deployment, scalability, and viability, primarily originating from Docker rather than Kubernetes. Its most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"I am impressed with the product's output scaling."
"Stability is perfect for me."
"GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need."
"The scalability is the best feature."
"The monitoring in the management console allows us to find out what is going wrong, and it gets reports even before the user reports it."
"The tool will then detect any anomalies, such as an intruder who has breached the network, which can trigger the system lockdown feature if it's enabled and meets the defined threshold."
"The console and tools are very user-friendly."
"The advantage of Data Center Security is its ease of use and that it serves as a single unified platform, where I can apply all my security policies to protect that server."
"The real strength lies in its straightforward approach, offering just two key policies: prevention and detection."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized console, which can handle different products that we have."
"The ability to finely control permissions and restrictions on servers or assets through a customizable rule set is a key strength."
"The granularity of applying the policies is valuable."
"There is room for improvement in this solution. For example, auto-scaling can be complex. We expect it to be easier to set up and manage, even for our customers."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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 pricing could be more competitive. It should be cheaper."
"The network configuration has to be simplified."
"Our critique is that we have to do too much work to get the cluster production-ready."
"The solution does not have a visual interface."
"I would like to see the ability to create multiple notebook configurations."
"They need to develop a more flexible product that can be scaled such that it fits well into a small business or a bigger, enterprise-level solution."
"Agent management is a challenging task."
"It would be advantageous if Symantec or Broadcom, given the rebranding, could simplify the process, enabling users to leverage the antivirus functionality more easily."
"The support is very bad. They're not fast at all. Trend Micro's support is much better."
"There is room for improvement in enhancing its graphical user interface for a more user-friendly experience."
"There is plenty of room for improvement with this product, and it could start with platform metrics."
"The product blocks certain processes, even after allowlisting them."
"This solution clashes with Microsoft defender, which results in performance degradation on the machine."
More Symantec Data Center Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Kubernetes Engine is ranked 9th in Container Management with 32 reviews while Symantec Data Center Security is ranked 12th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 11 reviews. Google Kubernetes Engine is rated 8.0, while Symantec Data Center Security is rated 7.6. 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 Symantec Data Center Security writes "A robust solution that provides comprehensive protection for data centers, offering agentless security, powerful intrusion prevention, and a wide range of security features". Google Kubernetes Engine is most compared with Linode, Kubernetes, Rancher Labs, Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform and VMware Tanzu Mission Control, whereas Symantec Data Center Security is most compared with Trend Micro Deep Security, Symantec Endpoint Security, VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. See our Google Kubernetes Engine vs. Symantec Data Center Security 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.
